Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Scribbler1 · Jan 1, 2004, 06:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,)
VERY BORING JIM, JUST LIKE YOUR BULSHIT FORUMS THAT ARE NOW CLOSED.

THEY ALL ARE THREATS BOY, GET IT, GOOD.

NOW DONT LET ME EMBARRASS YOU AGAIN, NOW GIT BEFORE I PIMP SLAP YOU AGAIN.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Pimp slap??? Let me make something clear. I don't embarrass easily, and when I read such an obviously intelligent, thoughtful and educated response from the likes of you, it only serves to make my case that most people are fools, ignorant, or in your case, both.

Happy New Year

Scribbler1 · Jan 1, 2004, 06:51 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
So Saddam had to go. Nobody argues that he was a creep, but he was the SAME creep we were supporting when he was fighting with Iran. Why weren't we pissed off at him then?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Because he was carrying out our agenda. You see, we were rather sore with the Ayatollah Khomeini for overthrowing the Shah in 1979. We couldn't help but support Hussein in his endeavor to cripple Iran. Communism was still perceived to be a significant threat at the time (hence why the CIA aided the Shah's rise to power in the first place). We could care less for some regional tinpot dictator killing his own people, we had the Soviet Union to worry about. Hussein and the Taliban were chump change at the time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

C.P. I agree with what you said to a point, but I question whether most of those actions were really in our NATIONAL interest. It's not a big stretch to suspect a profit motive here. If memory serves we were warned by former President Eisenhower to watch out for the Military-Industrial complex, and you have to admit these companies make a lot of money supplying arms, vehicles etc. to these "friendly" dictators, whether the dictators pay for the stuff themselves or WE do. But my point was to illustrate the reason why we are in the box we're in. It's easy for most people to minimize the impact of our actions when all these things happen elsewhere, but the people who actually lived in the middle of all this know we were involved and therefore have no particular love for us.

As for the Communist threat, Communism isn't dead, but it's pretty well isolated these days and in my opinion Russia is worrying more about keeping its economy from collapsing than anything else. Also, after seeing people like Joe McCarthy and the anti-commies in government being routinely exposed as opportunists or zealots with little to back up their frightening claims, I find little to convince me the Communists were as big a threat to US as they were portrayed. I tend to think they were as worried about us as we were of them and we "won" the cold war only because they bankrupted themselves before us.
But in the middle east, they remember all this stuff and are easily manipulated by Osama Bin Laden types because these guys use our involvement over there as a cause to further their perverted Jihads.

Jan 1, 2004, 07:56 pm

OLD CRAP, YOU ARE JUST A LITTLE BEOTCH,

YOU ACT LIKE I CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR, YOU JUST GOT PIMP SLAPPED AGAIN LITTLE HO.

NOW SHUT UP AND REBUILD YOUR FORUM THAT NOBODY VISITS.

Capitalist Pig · Jan 2, 2004, 12:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I was at first raising the point that you cannot have a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a method. A tool. It is not something that can be waged war upon. (You can however, in theory, stop terrorist actions, but this is different. I'll get back to this later) If this is true, that you cannot hit, kick, punch, shoot or nuke an idea, then why oh why would the US gov. be waging war on it? They are punching at shadows.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>In that case, I would have to agree.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But (eesh i'm gonna end up sounding like Imp here) because the populace, dumb as they are, connect terrorism with the 'baddies', its easier to say, we are declaring war on terrorism (as shown impossible), than to say the truth, we are declaring war on anyone who displeases us.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Or more appropriately, anyone who gets in our way.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If the governments of the coalition told the truth, then the populace would be against it, because they recognise it as the warmongering it is, and of no benefit to them. That damned humanity, that godforsaken annoyance known as a conscience still affects the populace, and they don't want wars just to make sure their government (which for many is bloody parochial these days anyway) can stay top bully in the playground.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>If the motivations for war that you stated are correct, then it is of every benefit to us because it would mean more resources available to accomodate our lifestyle. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want their country to be the top bully in the playground, as you put it. The Romans thoroughly enjoyed their lifestyle, and the Roman Empire is the standard by which all ancient civilizations of the time are judged. You're assuming everyone wants to be equal and that nationalism is something abhored by the common man. Unfortunately, this is not the reality.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
It has the added benefit of being so murky its easy to terrify the populace. "Oooohhh, we're at war with terrorism, the terrorists are out to get you!!" However, if put truely, it would sound like this. "We are going to, one by one, bomb the shit out of third world countries whose armies could be defeated by us in less than a week. These countries pose no direct threat, or future threat, to you. They do however have very poor populations whose culture we know little about, and fortunately you idiots know even less about. Now because you've been glued to your TV's for 50 years, you didn't notice that we have been royally screwing them in the ass for 300 years. Every now and then, one of them gets so desperate he or she wants to fight back. This gives us the perfect excuse to invade their countries and screw them some more! This of course has the effect of creating even more pissed of people wanting to fight back but hey, that gives us even more excuses to fuck them over."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Or, "We are going to, one by one, bomb the shit out of Third World countries whose armies could be defeated by us in less than a week. These countries pose no direct threat to you, other than by supporting the cultivation of a violent strain of Islam that wishes to undermine the Western way of life. They have very poor populations whose inferior culture we could care less about, and fortunately most of you feel the same. Now because you've been glued to your TV's for 50 years, you noticed that we've been looking out for American interests for 300 years. Every now and then, one of them gets so desperate they dare try and raise a finger to us. This gives us a good reason to flex our military might and try and offer the taxpayer a good look at their tax dollars in action. This of course has the effect of creating some entertaining (for once) television news where we see our soldiers obliterating the opposition."

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You know the stupidity of this war amuses me almost. You want to stop terrorism? Yet you killed at least 10 000 civillians in Iraq alone? There was this one guy who lost 11 people in his family to bombing raids. If I was him, I'd be plotting my revenge. Lets hope he doesn't have my creativity and knowledge of homemade explosives, or it could be very messy. So to stop terrorism, you are going to create more terrorists? This is against bloody double-speak. The only way to stop terrorists is to create more of them. Eh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I'm sorry, but I just don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp. In World War II we fought against the Nazis. Nazism is an ideology. If there were some Germans who disagreed with the Nazis then we didn't target them. We destroyed the ones who did. The same is true of Communism. Not all Russians were Communists, and I don't think most Americans thought of those who weren't as the enemy.

Identifying combatants and targeting them isn't difficult. We've killed many people in Afghanistan, and rightly so, who never themselves performed a terrorist operation. I think we could tell Iran, for example, that the clerics have to step down or we will invade. If they don't, then you consider anyone a combatant who shows up with a rifle in defense of the theocracy. The death of innocents is inevitable in any war, that can't be helped. What differentiates us from them is that we only fire if we are convinced there is a threat.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Stop, apologise, and help them. While of course hunting down the nutters who are too far gone, thats fair enough, but you don't have to keep killing 1000's of innocents to do this.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I'm afraid that I would never apologize for anything the United States has done that was in the name of the perpetuation of her existence. Call it pride, I call it survival of the fittest. If you think we haven't been trying to help the inhabitants of Afghanistan since Enduring Freedom, you're sorely mistaken. It is the inhabitants who do not help themselves. A culture is judged by its applicability, and their culture I rate as one of the worst.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The cause of terrorism is not radical islam. It is desperation. Content people do not listen to radical preachers. When you are desperate, you listen to the extremism of these people, because they point out who is to blame.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>See my response to Scribbler1. If you still have questions after that, see my definition of militant Islam.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,)
Until theirs a substantial change in the way the U.S foreign policy is doled out in the region, I see very little potential for improvement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>The same goes for the subscribers to militant Islam.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I see so this war was found in the bargain bin at best buy, yet both wars were fought in or heading into recessionary periods.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>If the only parallel you have between Gulf War 1 and Operation Iraqi Freedom is that they both happened to be heading into recessionary periods, I don't want to hear another word of your circumstantial evidence. It's just like the "No Blood For Oil" slogan, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. A perceived benefit of a war campaign does not make it a primary objective. And honestly, I could care less if we do purchase their oil. If it means lower gas prices, good.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You really think that making an excuse to broaden the scope of the Vietnamwar would have made it easier? Comon, that would give the Soviets and Chinese the excuse to actively send their troops, because it was a war on COMMUNISM now(not to mention you would have to deploy even more troops into the region).
It was in Americas best interest for these 2 not to get along!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>And by the Vietnam War, they weren't getting along. China had isolated itself from both the United States and the USSR. In fact, the People's Republic and the USSR had fought several border disputes in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Chinese hated the Soviets, whether or not a war on Communism in Southeast Asia would have prompted the USSR to respond is not clear. They would definitely use it as a negotiating tool to reestablish relations, but if the Chinese made unreasonable demands of the Soviets, I'm sure Moscow wouldn't have stood for it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Thats the problem though, Iran is actually a semi democratic nation.
Thats like declaring the U.S a christian terrorist nation, because they have a fundamental christian as a president and have the highest #'s of christian terrorists within their borders, not to mention they support a Judaic nation in the middle east that terrorises Islamic people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Uh, unlike declaring the United States a Christian nation, declaring Iran a democratic theocracy actually holds water (pardon the pun). The United States has a strong Christian tradition, the separation of Church and state ensures that it remains simply a tradition. Iran has no such clause. And what the hell are you talking about when you say "Christian terrorists?" You realize this example is ridiculous, don't you?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Combine that with the fact that Saudia Arabia is spiritual heart of Islam, if you attack these 2 nations- their is no clear distinction beetween a war on Islamic Militants and a war on Islam.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>We don't necessarily need to invade them to get them to cooperate, the threat should be enough. If it isn't, then we also have the option of unconventional warfare.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But then again, U.S foreign policy has never been about long term solutions, just a policy of containment of the "enemy".
Ignoring the unhappy and desperate people inside it's own borders (ala J.W. Lindh) until it comes to political or violent climax.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I see you have no idea what foreign policy is or should be, and that's fine. Most people of your ideological standing don't. Your idea of diplomacy is a beautiful picnic under the sun, where the ambassadors from various countries gather around in a circle on the front lawn of the UN, discussing peace in between sips of tea. Politics is a dirty business, and a country must look out for its best interests. When the United States stops doing that, then I'll see cause for concern.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Perhaps not all americans or westerners enjoy living in this western world.......<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Then they are free to leave and follow Lindh's example.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,)
C.P. I agree with what you said to a point, but I question whether most of those actions were really in our NATIONAL interest. It's not a big stretch to suspect a profit motive here. If memory serves we were warned by former President Eisenhower to watch out for the Military-Industrial complex, and you have to admit these companies make a lot of money supplying arms, vehicles etc. to these "friendly" dictators, whether the dictators pay for the stuff themselves or WE do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I'm not saying it isn't true that we never paid these dictators a dime, but I think in order to explain this one I have to explain a little history between us and the militant Islamists. From our first involvement in that region in the early years of the twentieth century, American oil men were harassed and threatened by Islamic zealots who were obsessed with purging Islamic lands of "Western Infidels." Abandoned by Western governments (gunboat diplomacy should never have gone away), many oil men were forced to pay local warlords to protect them against the Islamists. Many of those warlords would become nationalist dictators in the coming decades.

The presence of Westerners in the Middle East, and perhaps more importantly the influence of Western culture, created a rift in Middle Eastern culture. The pragmatic warlord types frequently allied themselves with Western business, extorting protection money from them. But this put them in the increasingly dangerous position of being apostates in the eyes of the militant Islamic clergy. In what would evolve into a precarious balancing act that persists until this day, a system evolved where US oil companies, unsupported by their governments, were forced to pay off the warlords, who were in turn forced to pay off the clerics. Both the warlords (for lack of a better word, many of these men went on to be the despots of the region like the Shah) and the clerics were profiting immensely from the extortion trade, the only difference is that while the warlord types were usually either busy blowing it in Monte Carlo and building opulent palaces, the clerics were spending it consolidating power in the mosques and madrassas. So the confrontation between militant Islam and the West actually has roots as far back as the 20's.

In the 30's and 40's, a series of nationalizations occurred in our own hemisphere (notably Cardenas in Mexico, and the upping of the ante in Venezuela) that emboldened the Islamists still further. Mossadegh may have been the face on the Iranian nationalization in the early 50's, but Mossadegh himself spoke candidly on several occassions saying that he basically had no choice but to antagonize the West -- to do anything else would have guaranteed an assassination by Islamic fanatics (and his fears were not without precedent). In my opinion, if you want to pick a single watershed event in the whole miserable history, it is the Iranian nationalization in 1951. It was then that the militant Islamists realized that if they were barabaric and menacing enough, they could impose their will on a now emasculated West -- not emasculated in the physical sense, but in the philosophical sense. Events before that point amounted to the militant Islamists testing the water, but the Iranian nationalization was the victory that reinforced terror and brutality as a means of achieving their ends.

All the subsequent confrontations: Suez, the wholesale nationalization of Western assets in the entire Middle East, various embargoes, the wars against Israel, and the overthrow of the Shah and the American prostration of '79, all were extensions of the trend that I think really crystallized in '51. The key is that the militant Islamists could be no threat to us without our own complicity. The resources that have been used to finance the militant Islamic terrorism that now threatens us could not exist without our own complicity. The money that builds their training camps, and funds the governments who sponsor their indoctrination camps (aka mosques and madrassahs), comes from us. Why do they have it? Because after our scientists and businessmen went over there, found the oil, paid the price asked by the princes and dictators, then paid higher and higher prices again and again as those scumbags broke contract after contract threatening to kick them out if they didn't pay more -- until finally they nationalized everything and told our companies, "now it's ours, come back and run it for us or we'll shut off the pump," in a final act of pure criminal theft on the grandest scale. In response to all of that, the moral cowards that have led America for the past 100 years rolled over and fed our businessmen to the wolves. That is when the message was sent that Americans could be menaced, and that is when the extortion money that every one of us still pays today when we gas up our car started its inevitable trickle into the bank accounts that would someday buy an airline ticket for Mohammed Atta.

Scribbler1 · Jan 2, 2004, 01:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,)
OLD CRAP, YOU ARE JUST A LITTLE BEOTCH,

YOU ACT LIKE I CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR, YOU JUST GOT PIMP SLAPPED AGAIN LITTLE HO.

NOW SHUT UP AND REBUILD YOUR FORUM THAT NOBODY VISITS.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm only responding because since I haven't seen you post anything remotely constructive I will not be wasting any more time with you and will no longer respond unless you have something pertinent to say. So insult me all you want, and I'll probably accidentally see your shouting (watch the caps lock) posts but I really don't have that kind of time to waste with this.
Have a nice day.

castille · Jan 2, 2004, 10:05 am

Liberals, leftwingers, and other various sorts on the Left have very little understanding of "politics" and "international relations".

Think of politics as the men who clean the sewers and take out the garbage. Its a dirty job. They stick their hands into filthy mess, while you enjoy the fruits of their labour (and go "ewwww" when you need to do something a little dirty!).

Who fights wars, while you debate in your universities and college?
Who is blown up by suicide bombers, while you ponder the necessity of war in the Middle East?
Certainly not the pampered, often liberal/leftwing college students. They're the armchair generals, armchair politicians, and armchair humanitarians.

Politics is a dirty word. It is a dirty place to be. Politicians DO sit with each other under the lawn sipping tea and discussing peace. Then they kill each other after tea.

You think nationalism is evil and everyone hates it? Well, think again. A single incident in China over a Japanese insult turned into a fully-fledged anti-Japanese protest and riot. In a country without protests, over 400,000 people joined in protests over the US Spy Plane incidents.

Meanwhile, in the United States, over 40 million American flags are displayed by people in private property and homes. In the Slavic East Europe, the Yugoslavia war was fought for the very notion of nationalism. The vision of Japan's workers are to improve their national economy and take pride in their country.

Politics is a dirty place, and for most of us, we are happy to live off the politicians achievements, while complaining when they make a small mistake.

Like the sewer workers and garbage collectors, politics is about sticking your hands into dirty business while your people judges.

darwinist · Jan 2, 2004, 12:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Quote:Originally Posted by (darwinist,)
So the 'ends' justify the means? Is that what you trying to say?

It certaintly does so in this case.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It certaintly does in this case. As with all exceptions, once you have one. Then you can use that too create other exceptions. Before you know it, it becomes a loophole. The loopholes are always exploited, espically be those with power.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
And the protestants had a rein of terror over the catholics in Ireland until the IRA brought this problem to the fore, and now its gone, the catholic persecution that is. And can you be more picky please when you say IRA, because there is a massive difference between the IRA (Provo's) and the splinter groups like the Real IRA. I have distant relations in the IRA (Provo's) and it pisses me off when people lump together the factions of militant republicanism. Some are responsible, and some are violent thugs.

Just being picky. Carry on now. Good to see CP being torn down.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sorry Adams. I was just making the point of the, duplicity of morality. Being used by the American government.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
History is not instantaneous. Just because you lack foresight, does not mean the situation won't potentially improve.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What are you talking about. History is already written. It has happen. What you seem to be saying here. Is that victory has already taken place. When it has not. If you look in history. Again the i brought back to the war with terror. That Britain had. They fought years. But there still is no victory. There have been many battles. There is a kind of peace. But the war still continues.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The military never did go away, we remained on their doorstep for quite sometime and continued bombing campaigns every so often. And to be honest, I don't think anyone really cared about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. The capture of Saddam Hussein may or may not speed up the discovery of an NBC weapons program (or the intent of restarting one), to me it makes no difference either way. I believe whatever there was of Hussein's weapons program is so widely scattered about the countryside, it'll be a long while before we ever see anything substantial that isn't a lab beaker in a suspicious truck.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If nobody really cares about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then why did they go to war over them? This agruement just helps my first point.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Bin Laden's is no longer an issue. That is the latest comment from Mr Bush. Even though they know where he is.

Where did you get that we know where he is?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...shows/binladen/

I try to find the article, where they found him.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I don't know anything about the link between the United States government and the Irish Republican Army, and I could honestly care less. Again, I do not believe that framing this as a war on terrorism was a wise decision. With all the apologizing Bush has done on behalf of Islam, it would indeed be difficult to reframe the scope of this war now, and I never said it would be easy.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You don't care that the American government will not lift a finger to stop bombings against it's closest ally?

G. Adams · Jan 2, 2004, 05:08 pm

Thats not quite true, Bill Clinton did help greatly in developing the Good Friday agreement, and was seen as a friend to both the Republicans and the British government.

Jan 3, 2004, 03:48 pm

"I haven't seen you post anything remotely constructive"
I HAVE POSTED MANY CONSTUCTIVE POSTS, ITS NOT MY FAULT YOU ARENT OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO SEE THAT.

"and will no longer respond unless you have something pertinent to say."
SINCE WHEN AM I HERE TO PLEASE YOU OR SPARK ANY PROVOCATIVE THOUGHT IN YOUR MIND.

"(watch the caps lock)"
ITS NOT MY FAULT IF THAT IS HOW YOU TAKE IT.

"I really don't have that kind of time to waste with this."
SINCE I DIDNT BOW TO YOU OR AGREE WITH YOU, ALL OF A SUDDEN IM A WASTE OF TIME.

CHE WAS A TERRORIST BY THE WAY......

OOPS DONT READ THAT, ITS A WASTE OF TIME.

TOOL.

Bayou · Jan 3, 2004, 07:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG)
If the only parallel you have between Gulf War 1 and Operation Iraqi Freedom is that they both happened to be heading into recessionary periods, I don't want to hear another word of your circumstantial evidence. It's just like the "No Blood For Oil" slogan, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. A perceived benefit of a war campaign does not make it a primary objective. And honestly, I could care less if we do purchase their oil. If it means lower gas prices, good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What are you talking about, I also drew the allusion beetween the Islamic neighbors not supporting the decision to fully invade Iraq in the post previous, can we connect the dots? "A perceived benefit" is that what you call Foreign policy objectives now? It is not in the Saudi's interests to have american or "free market" controls on such a large oil reserve as Iraq, as it would bring the price of oil down if Iraq was outside the influence of OPEC. That means their is an economic incentive for keeping Iraq in turmoil. And if it's not the primary objective, then why falsify official documents about WMD hmmmm?
Seems to me if their were WMD, the great Intelligence agencies of our nations wouldnt have to manufacture claims now would they? It sure cant be humanitarian in nature, as the original Gulf War would have contiued in light of how Saddam moved against the Shiite and Kurdish rebelllions afterwards.
So I guess according to your reasoning the U.S has NO PRIMARY OBJECTIVES now right?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG)
I see you have no idea what foreign policy is or should be, and that's fine. Most people of your ideological standing don't. Your idea of diplomacy is a beautiful picnic under the sun, where the ambassadors from various countries gather around in a circle on the front lawn of the UN, discussing peace in between sips of tea. Politics is a dirty business, and a country must look out for its best interests. When the United States stops doing that, then I'll see cause for concern.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
"a country must look out for its best interests." Ha, you paint this like the U.S is a pedestrian crossing an intersection when in reality the actions are more like a driver who thinks they are above the law.
Yes I now what you think is diplomacy:<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG)
(gunboat diplomacy should never have gone away)<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Ha thanks for the history lesson, but you skipped a few details, like how your gunboat diplomacy was instrumental in carving what is the Iraq of today(and most of the Middle east for that matter) at the fall of the ottomon empire after WWpart1; unnaturaly carving up cultural families in its now very unstable collection of people. Cry and call the Kettle black Tea pot, when it was american and british imperialism forcing their beleifs on Islamics, then the Islamics learned that they could do the same: what a shock.
But then again your foreign policy works only for itself, it has no view of fair, always us VS them. You laughably cant even see your own role in the making of your bed in the Middle east, except when you cry complicity, oh good lord why doesnt the american consumer have more self control; we have merely programmed them to consume in order to make ourselves rich, curse the unequal allocation of rescources, curse people different from us, curse the entropic nature of capital, Complicit IT IS ALL COMPLICIT!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG)
Then they are free to leave and follow Lindh's example.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yeh, because if they dont share your opinion they are not a citizen anymore?
Lindh was a pathetic case of dissilutionment, but I cant say I blame him, he could have went down more self fullfilling avenues then prostrate himself again before another opressive and obnoxious group of thugs. Once is usually never good enough for PIGS like you.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capital PIG)
Uh, unlike declaring the United States a Christian nation, declaring Iran a democratic theocracy actually holds water (pardon the pun). The United States has a strong Christian tradition, the separation of Church and state ensures that it remains simply a tradition. Iran has no such clause. And what the hell are you talking about when you say "Christian terrorists?" You realize this example is ridiculous, don't you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not when GWB declares that he has approval from god to go ahead with an Iraq war.
Your seperation of church and state have become very questionable of late, being agaist the war on terror equals being unpatriotic, certain states teaching creationism in science classes, please teach me about secularism?
No it's not absurd, "Oklahoma bombing" anyone? to them the federal government wasnt acting in a very christian matter and needed to be punished....?
I consider anyone supporting militant judaism a christian terrorist too, perhaps would biblical terrorist be better? Different interpretations, all the same book( and at least the Israelis have nukes, so they can actually be considered a threat to peace in the region).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG)
I'm afraid that I would never apologize for anything the United States has done that was in the name of the perpetuation of her existence. Call it pride, I call it survival of the fittest. If you think we haven't been trying to help the inhabitants of Afghanistan since Enduring Freedom, you're sorely mistaken. It is the inhabitants who do not help themselves. A culture is judged by its applicability, and their culture I rate as one of the worst.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Castill)
Liberals, leftwingers, and other various sorts on the Left have very little understanding of "politics" and "international relations".
Think of politics as the men who clean the sewers and take out the garbage. Its a dirty job. They stick their hands into filthy mess, while you enjoy the fruits of their labour (and go "ewwww" when you need to do something a little dirty!).
Who fights wars, while you debate in your universities and college?
Who is blown up by suicide bombers, while you ponder the necessity of war in the Middle East?
Certainly not the pampered, often liberal/leftwing college students. They're the armchair generals, armchair politicians, and armchair humanitarians.
Politics is a dirty word. It is a dirty place to be. Politicians DO sit with each other under the lawn sipping tea and discussing peace. Then they kill each other after tea.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh my goodness look at those brave backstabbing politicians, guess who has to fight their wars, the poor and middle class.
But it's their own fault right, just like the pig said: it's the Afghanis fault that western countries do invade their country, train their Islamic followers in geurilla tacticas and then let them use those tactics against the soviets; ooops and they decided to act eventually against their Masters, where do they get the nerve to be so disrespectful to their cultural superiors?
Who will shed a tear when you die in ball of flame from a terrorist bomb, or are under the boot, with a gun to your head held by the people your politics abused?
I will shed a tear for their pain.
Disrespect for human life sows the seeds of your own destruction.

G. Adams · Jan 3, 2004, 08:54 pm

[quote=mrhotdogla,]
CHE WAS A TERRORIST BY THE WAY......
[quote]

Your point is? He was also a doctor, a tactition, a master strategist, a brilliant soldier, a human, an asthmatic and a hero. Terrorism is a tool, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It's the purpose it's put to that makes it right or wrong.

Jan 4, 2004, 05:11 am

"Terrorism is a tool, there is nothing inherently wrong with it."
SO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS, I FIGURED AS SUCH.

"a master strategist, a brilliant soldier"
WHO GOT CAUGHT MAKING TROUBLE IN BOLIVIA, NOW THANKFULLY HE IS DEAD. SO MUCH FOR YOUR TACTITION.

CHE WAS A PIECE OF CHIT.

Bayou · Jan 4, 2004, 08:10 am

Hey MRHOTDOGLA, isnt their an NRA/KKK forum you would be happier posting at, I mean at least you would have peers of equal intellectual stature their.
I thought sean kept the usership of this forum open to only a select few in order to keep stupid asinine people like you from posting here?
Considering all of your posts could be considered abuse, I am surprised no one has reported you yet?
Shall I be the 1st one?

G. Adams · Jan 4, 2004, 05:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,)
"Terrorism is a tool, there is nothing inherently wrong with it."
SO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS, I FIGURED AS SUCH.

"a master strategist, a brilliant soldier"
WHO GOT CAUGHT MAKING TROUBLE IN BOLIVIA, NOW THANKFULLY HE IS DEAD. SO MUCH FOR YOUR TACTITION.

CHE WAS A PIECE OF CHIT.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Of course I support terrorists when they are fighting for worthwhile causes. Like the revolutionaries of the American War of Indepedance. Or the Maquis in Nazi occupied France.

darwinist · Jan 5, 2004, 01:11 pm

Terrorism is just an advanced form of guerrilla warfare.

Guerrilla warfare is sneaky tatics to hit a bigger more powerful enemy. Sneaky == Sensible. If you want to win the war. You fight on your terms. Sun Tzu art of war.

Terrorism is one step further. Decleare war on the populace or infustructure. To apply political pressure on their government. If you get what you want, you win.

G. Adams · Jan 5, 2004, 07:18 pm

I wouldn't call terrorism an advancement of guerilla warfare, it is a technique that you can use as a guerilla though. A guerilla warfare is unconventional warfare. Basically, any warfare conducted outside of a traditional military structure. For some of the best info on guerilla warfare, read Clausewitz or (much more readable) Che's own "Guerilla Warfare". It is focused on Latin America, so the territories you apply it to may be quite different, but as long as you have a grasp of soldiering you can modify and re-apply succesfully.

dalinlooter · Jan 23, 2004, 03:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,)
NEVER MIND ALL THE 300,000 OF HIS OWN PEOPLE HE MURDERED.

NEVER MIND THE RAPE TABLES AND TORTURE CHAMBERS.

NEVER MIND THE BULLYING OF KUWAIT AND IRAN AND ISRAEL.

SADDAM HAD TO GO, THAT IS FINAL.

SYRIA, IRAN, NORTH KOREA ARE NEXT IF THEY DONT BEHAVE, WHY ELSE DO YOU THINK LIBYA IS PLAYING NICE. KADDAFI LEARNED HIS LESSON WITH REAGAN, NOW HE IS SPEAKING UP SO HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE.

REMEMBER THIS. IF THEY CAUSE TROUBLE, THEY ARE NEXT. AND THE SOONER THE BETTER. THE MIDDLE EAST WILL BE MORE STABLE AFTER ALL OF THIER ARMS ARE TURNED TO ASH, AND WE INJECT FREEDOM AND FREE TRADE.

.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No one disagrees to these claims of murder, rape and bullying. Now the question is what are we doing in Iraq? Average death of innocent Iraqis stand at 15/day by American fire alone, at least 6 rapes are reported every day by American soldiers in Iraq. The Abu Gharib prison torture is being investigated by Pentagon. Did we depose Saddam to do all this? Or are we unintentionally
Brutalizing Iraq in the name of nation building? If so I think we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible leaving Iraq to United Nations and help UN to do the nation building there. The values that built America for more than 200 years never authorize anyone to do what is happening in Iraq. I am not accusing our brave soldiers here, they are an occupying force and this will happen but when it happens we cannot blame people who did the same.

Paul · Jan 26, 2004, 11:35 pm

# Nonviolence.org Discussion Board :: View topic - This is great!
... Go to: http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html Have fun _________________ Freedom in the mere sense of independence is meaningless. ...
http://www.nonviolence.org/comment/viewtop...t=250&view=next

castille · Jan 27, 2004, 11:05 am

Only 6 Iraqis raped a day by US soldier?

Thats 100 times less than the Soviet rate of raping.

tusaki · Jan 27, 2004, 12:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Only 6 Iraqis raped a day by US soldier?

Thats 100 times less than the Soviet rate of raping.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You keep pointing fingers at others while ignoring the point in itself. If the American Soldiers did something wrong, that in itself is bad. If the Soviets did something worse, then that in itself is evil but does not make the first act less wrong. This seems to me like shooting someone and arguing before the judge that you know someone who has shot -more- people.

I've never known an occupying force for behaving. I guess it has something to do with human nature. When weak willed men get put in a position where they have a lot of stress and they can force their will on someone else they sometimes will. I would say the US has done a good job at keeping stress levels much lower than Russia. Too bad there are still people in the army which shouldn't be there. I guess you can't filter them beforehand.

Jan 1, 2004, 06:22 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,836	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,) VERY BORING JIM, JUST LIKE YOUR BULSHIT FORUMS THAT ARE NOW CLOSED. THEY ALL ARE THREATS BOY, GET IT, GOOD. NOW DONT LET ME EMBARRASS YOU AGAIN, NOW GIT BEFORE I PIMP SLAP YOU AGAIN.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Pimp slap??? Let me make something clear. I don't embarrass easily, and when I read such an obviously intelligent, thoughtful and educated response from the likes of you, it only serves to make my case that most people are fools, ignorant, or in your case, both. Happy New Year Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jan 1, 2004, 06:51 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,836	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) So Saddam had to go. Nobody argues that he was a creep, but he was the SAME creep we were supporting when he was fighting with Iran. Why weren't we pissed off at him then?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Because he was carrying out our agenda. You see, we were rather sore with the Ayatollah Khomeini for overthrowing the Shah in 1979. We couldn't help but support Hussein in his endeavor to cripple Iran. Communism was still perceived to be a significant threat at the time (hence why the CIA aided the Shah's rise to power in the first place). We could care less for some regional tinpot dictator killing his own people, we had the Soviet Union to worry about. Hussein and the Taliban were chump change at the time.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> C.P. I agree with what you said to a point, but I question whether most of those actions were really in our NATIONAL interest. It's not a big stretch to suspect a profit motive here. If memory serves we were warned by former President Eisenhower to watch out for the Military-Industrial complex, and you have to admit these companies make a lot of money supplying arms, vehicles etc. to these "friendly" dictators, whether the dictators pay for the stuff themselves or WE do. But my point was to illustrate the reason why we are in the box we're in. It's easy for most people to minimize the impact of our actions when all these things happen elsewhere, but the people who actually lived in the middle of all this know we were involved and therefore have no particular love for us. As for the Communist threat, Communism isn't dead, but it's pretty well isolated these days and in my opinion Russia is worrying more about keeping its economy from collapsing than anything else. Also, after seeing people like Joe McCarthy and the anti-commies in government being routinely exposed as opportunists or zealots with little to back up their frightening claims, I find little to convince me the Communists were as big a threat to US as they were portrayed. I tend to think they were as worried about us as we were of them and we "won" the cold war only because they bankrupted themselves before us. But in the middle east, they remember all this stuff and are easily manipulated by Osama Bin Laden types because these guys use our involvement over there as a cause to further their perverted Jihads. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jan 2, 2004, 12:51 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 652	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) I was at first raising the point that you cannot have a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a method. A tool. It is not something that can be waged war upon. (You can however, in theory, stop terrorist actions, but this is different. I'll get back to this later) If this is true, that you cannot hit, kick, punch, shoot or nuke an idea, then why oh why would the US gov. be waging war on it? They are punching at shadows.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>In that case, I would have to agree. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But (eesh i'm gonna end up sounding like Imp here) because the populace, dumb as they are, connect terrorism with the 'baddies', its easier to say, we are declaring war on terrorism (as shown impossible), than to say the truth, we are declaring war on anyone who displeases us.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Or more appropriately, anyone who gets in our way. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If the governments of the coalition told the truth, then the populace would be against it, because they recognise it as the warmongering it is, and of no benefit to them. That damned humanity, that godforsaken annoyance known as a conscience still affects the populace, and they don't want wars just to make sure their government (which for many is bloody parochial these days anyway) can stay top bully in the playground.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>If the motivations for war that you stated are correct, then it is of every benefit to us because it would mean more resources available to accomodate our lifestyle. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want their country to be the top bully in the playground, as you put it. The Romans thoroughly enjoyed their lifestyle, and the Roman Empire is the standard by which all ancient civilizations of the time are judged. You're assuming everyone wants to be equal and that nationalism is something abhored by the common man. Unfortunately, this is not the reality. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by It has the added benefit of being so murky its easy to terrify the populace. "Oooohhh, we're at war with terrorism, the terrorists are out to get you!!" However, if put truely, it would sound like this. "We are going to, one by one, bomb the shit out of third world countries whose armies could be defeated by us in less than a week. These countries pose no direct threat, or future threat, to you. They do however have very poor populations whose culture we know little about, and fortunately you idiots know even less about. Now because you've been glued to your TV's for 50 years, you didn't notice that we have been royally screwing them in the ass for 300 years. Every now and then, one of them gets so desperate he or she wants to fight back. This gives us the perfect excuse to invade their countries and screw them some more! This of course has the effect of creating even more pissed of people wanting to fight back but hey, that gives us even more excuses to fuck them over."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Or, "We are going to, one by one, bomb the shit out of Third World countries whose armies could be defeated by us in less than a week. These countries pose no direct threat to you, other than by supporting the cultivation of a violent strain of Islam that wishes to undermine the Western way of life. They have very poor populations whose inferior culture we could care less about, and fortunately most of you feel the same. Now because you've been glued to your TV's for 50 years, you noticed that we've been looking out for American interests for 300 years. Every now and then, one of them gets so desperate they dare try and raise a finger to us. This gives us a good reason to flex our military might and try and offer the taxpayer a good look at their tax dollars in action. This of course has the effect of creating some entertaining (for once) television news where we see our soldiers obliterating the opposition." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You know the stupidity of this war amuses me almost. You want to stop terrorism? Yet you killed at least 10 000 civillians in Iraq alone? There was this one guy who lost 11 people in his family to bombing raids. If I was him, I'd be plotting my revenge. Lets hope he doesn't have my creativity and knowledge of homemade explosives, or it could be very messy. So to stop terrorism, you are going to create more terrorists? This is against bloody double-speak. The only way to stop terrorists is to create more of them. Eh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I'm sorry, but I just don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp. In World War II we fought against the Nazis. Nazism is an ideology. If there were some Germans who disagreed with the Nazis then we didn't target them. We destroyed the ones who did. The same is true of Communism. Not all Russians were Communists, and I don't think most Americans thought of those who weren't as the enemy. Identifying combatants and targeting them isn't difficult. We've killed many people in Afghanistan, and rightly so, who never themselves performed a terrorist operation. I think we could tell Iran, for example, that the clerics have to step down or we will invade. If they don't, then you consider anyone a combatant who shows up with a rifle in defense of the theocracy. The death of innocents is inevitable in any war, that can't be helped. What differentiates us from them is that we only fire if we are convinced there is a threat. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Stop, apologise, and help them. While of course hunting down the nutters who are too far gone, thats fair enough, but you don't have to keep killing 1000's of innocents to do this.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I'm afraid that I would never apologize for anything the United States has done that was in the name of the perpetuation of her existence. Call it pride, I call it survival of the fittest. If you think we haven't been trying to help the inhabitants of Afghanistan since Enduring Freedom, you're sorely mistaken. It is the inhabitants who do not help themselves. A culture is judged by its applicability, and their culture I rate as one of the worst. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The cause of terrorism is not radical islam. It is desperation. Content people do not listen to radical preachers. When you are desperate, you listen to the extremism of these people, because they point out who is to blame.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>See my response to Scribbler1. If you still have questions after that, see my definition of militant Islam. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Bayou,) Until theirs a substantial change in the way the U.S foreign policy is doled out in the region, I see very little potential for improvement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The same goes for the subscribers to militant Islam. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I see so this war was found in the bargain bin at best buy, yet both wars were fought in or heading into recessionary periods.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>If the only parallel you have between Gulf War 1 and Operation Iraqi Freedom is that they both happened to be heading into recessionary periods, I don't want to hear another word of your circumstantial evidence. It's just like the "No Blood For Oil" slogan, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. A perceived benefit of a war campaign does not make it a primary objective. And honestly, I could care less if we do purchase their oil. If it means lower gas prices, good. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You really think that making an excuse to broaden the scope of the Vietnamwar would have made it easier? Comon, that would give the Soviets and Chinese the excuse to actively send their troops, because it was a war on COMMUNISM now(not to mention you would have to deploy even more troops into the region). It was in Americas best interest for these 2 not to get along!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>And by the Vietnam War, they weren't getting along. China had isolated itself from both the United States and the USSR. In fact, the People's Republic and the USSR had fought several border disputes in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Chinese hated the Soviets, whether or not a war on Communism in Southeast Asia would have prompted the USSR to respond is not clear. They would definitely use it as a negotiating tool to reestablish relations, but if the Chinese made unreasonable demands of the Soviets, I'm sure Moscow wouldn't have stood for it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Thats the problem though, Iran is actually a semi democratic nation. Thats like declaring the U.S a christian terrorist nation, because they have a fundamental christian as a president and have the highest #'s of christian terrorists within their borders, not to mention they support a Judaic nation in the middle east that terrorises Islamic people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Uh, unlike declaring the United States a Christian nation, declaring Iran a democratic theocracy actually holds water (pardon the pun). The United States has a strong Christian tradition, the separation of Church and state ensures that it remains simply a tradition. Iran has no such clause. And what the hell are you talking about when you say "Christian terrorists?" You realize this example is ridiculous, don't you? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Combine that with the fact that Saudia Arabia is spiritual heart of Islam, if you attack these 2 nations- their is no clear distinction beetween a war on Islamic Militants and a war on Islam.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>We don't necessarily need to invade them to get them to cooperate, the threat should be enough. If it isn't, then we also have the option of unconventional warfare. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But then again, U.S foreign policy has never been about long term solutions, just a policy of containment of the "enemy". Ignoring the unhappy and desperate people inside it's own borders (ala J.W. Lindh) until it comes to political or violent climax.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I see you have no idea what foreign policy is or should be, and that's fine. Most people of your ideological standing don't. Your idea of diplomacy is a beautiful picnic under the sun, where the ambassadors from various countries gather around in a circle on the front lawn of the UN, discussing peace in between sips of tea. Politics is a dirty business, and a country must look out for its best interests. When the United States stops doing that, then I'll see cause for concern. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Perhaps not all americans or westerners enjoy living in this western world.......<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Then they are free to leave and follow Lindh's example. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Scribbler1,) C.P. I agree with what you said to a point, but I question whether most of those actions were really in our NATIONAL interest. It's not a big stretch to suspect a profit motive here. If memory serves we were warned by former President Eisenhower to watch out for the Military-Industrial complex, and you have to admit these companies make a lot of money supplying arms, vehicles etc. to these "friendly" dictators, whether the dictators pay for the stuff themselves or WE do.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I'm not saying it isn't true that we never paid these dictators a dime, but I think in order to explain this one I have to explain a little history between us and the militant Islamists. From our first involvement in that region in the early years of the twentieth century, American oil men were harassed and threatened by Islamic zealots who were obsessed with purging Islamic lands of "Western Infidels." Abandoned by Western governments (gunboat diplomacy should never have gone away), many oil men were forced to pay local warlords to protect them against the Islamists. Many of those warlords would become nationalist dictators in the coming decades. The presence of Westerners in the Middle East, and perhaps more importantly the influence of Western culture, created a rift in Middle Eastern culture. The pragmatic warlord types frequently allied themselves with Western business, extorting protection money from them. But this put them in the increasingly dangerous position of being apostates in the eyes of the militant Islamic clergy. In what would evolve into a precarious balancing act that persists until this day, a system evolved where US oil companies, unsupported by their governments, were forced to pay off the warlords, who were in turn forced to pay off the clerics. Both the warlords (for lack of a better word, many of these men went on to be the despots of the region like the Shah) and the clerics were profiting immensely from the extortion trade, the only difference is that while the warlord types were usually either busy blowing it in Monte Carlo and building opulent palaces, the clerics were spending it consolidating power in the mosques and madrassas. So the confrontation between militant Islam and the West actually has roots as far back as the 20's. In the 30's and 40's, a series of nationalizations occurred in our own hemisphere (notably Cardenas in Mexico, and the upping of the ante in Venezuela) that emboldened the Islamists still further. Mossadegh may have been the face on the Iranian nationalization in the early 50's, but Mossadegh himself spoke candidly on several occassions saying that he basically had no choice but to antagonize the West -- to do anything else would have guaranteed an assassination by Islamic fanatics (and his fears were not without precedent). In my opinion, if you want to pick a single watershed event in the whole miserable history, it is the Iranian nationalization in 1951. It was then that the militant Islamists realized that if they were barabaric and menacing enough, they could impose their will on a now emasculated West -- not emasculated in the physical sense, but in the philosophical sense. Events before that point amounted to the militant Islamists testing the water, but the Iranian nationalization was the victory that reinforced terror and brutality as a means of achieving their ends. All the subsequent confrontations: Suez, the wholesale nationalization of Western assets in the entire Middle East, various embargoes, the wars against Israel, and the overthrow of the Shah and the American prostration of '79, all were extensions of the trend that I think really crystallized in '51. The key is that the militant Islamists could be no threat to us without our own complicity. The resources that have been used to finance the militant Islamic terrorism that now threatens us could not exist without our own complicity. The money that builds their training camps, and funds the governments who sponsor their indoctrination camps (aka mosques and madrassahs), comes from us. Why do they have it? Because after our scientists and businessmen went over there, found the oil, paid the price asked by the princes and dictators, then paid higher and higher prices again and again as those scumbags broke contract after contract threatening to kick them out if they didn't pay more -- until finally they nationalized everything and told our companies, "now it's ours, come back and run it for us or we'll shut off the pump," in a final act of pure criminal theft on the grandest scale. In response to all of that, the moral cowards that have led America for the past 100 years rolled over and fed our businessmen to the wolves. That is when the message was sent that Americans could be menaced, and that is when the extortion money that every one of us still pays today when we gas up our car started its inevitable trickle into the bank accounts that would someday buy an airline ticket for Mohammed Atta. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Jan 2, 2004, 01:12 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,836	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,) OLD CRAP, YOU ARE JUST A LITTLE BEOTCH, YOU ACT LIKE I CARE WHAT YOU THINK. LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR, YOU JUST GOT PIMP SLAPPED AGAIN LITTLE HO. NOW SHUT UP AND REBUILD YOUR FORUM THAT NOBODY VISITS.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm only responding because since I haven't seen you post anything remotely constructive I will not be wasting any more time with you and will no longer respond unless you have something pertinent to say. So insult me all you want, and I'll probably accidentally see your shouting (watch the caps lock) posts but I really don't have that kind of time to waste with this. Have a nice day. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jan 2, 2004, 10:05 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Liberals, leftwingers, and other various sorts on the Left have very little understanding of "politics" and "international relations". Think of politics as the men who clean the sewers and take out the garbage. Its a dirty job. They stick their hands into filthy mess, while you enjoy the fruits of their labour (and go "ewwww" when you need to do something a little dirty!). Who fights wars, while you debate in your universities and college? Who is blown up by suicide bombers, while you ponder the necessity of war in the Middle East? Certainly not the pampered, often liberal/leftwing college students. They're the armchair generals, armchair politicians, and armchair humanitarians. Politics is a dirty word. It is a dirty place to be. Politicians DO sit with each other under the lawn sipping tea and discussing peace. Then they kill each other after tea. You think nationalism is evil and everyone hates it? Well, think again. A single incident in China over a Japanese insult turned into a fully-fledged anti-Japanese protest and riot. In a country without protests, over 400,000 people joined in protests over the US Spy Plane incidents. Meanwhile, in the United States, over 40 million American flags are displayed by people in private property and homes. In the Slavic East Europe, the Yugoslavia war was fought for the very notion of nationalism. The vision of Japan's workers are to improve their national economy and take pride in their country. Politics is a dirty place, and for most of us, we are happy to live off the politicians achievements, while complaining when they make a small mistake. Like the sewer workers and garbage collectors, politics is about sticking your hands into dirty business while your people judges. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jan 1, 2004, 07:56 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
mrhotdogla Guest Posts: n/a	OLD CRAP, YOU ARE JUST A LITTLE BEOTCH, YOU ACT LIKE I CARE WHAT YOU THINK. LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR, YOU JUST GOT PIMP SLAPPED AGAIN LITTLE HO. NOW SHUT UP AND REBUILD YOUR FORUM THAT NOBODY VISITS.

Jan 2, 2004, 12:56 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Quote:Originally Posted by (darwinist,) So the 'ends' justify the means? Is that what you trying to say? It certaintly does so in this case. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It certaintly does in this case. As with all exceptions, once you have one. Then you can use that too create other exceptions. Before you know it, it becomes a loophole. The loopholes are always exploited, espically be those with power. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by And the protestants had a rein of terror over the catholics in Ireland until the IRA brought this problem to the fore, and now its gone, the catholic persecution that is. And can you be more picky please when you say IRA, because there is a massive difference between the IRA (Provo's) and the splinter groups like the Real IRA. I have distant relations in the IRA (Provo's) and it pisses me off when people lump together the factions of militant republicanism. Some are responsible, and some are violent thugs. Just being picky. Carry on now. Good to see CP being torn down. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry Adams. I was just making the point of the, duplicity of morality. Being used by the American government. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by History is not instantaneous. Just because you lack foresight, does not mean the situation won't potentially improve. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What are you talking about. History is already written. It has happen. What you seem to be saying here. Is that victory has already taken place. When it has not. If you look in history. Again the i brought back to the war with terror. That Britain had. They fought years. But there still is no victory. There have been many battles. There is a kind of peace. But the war still continues. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The military never did go away, we remained on their doorstep for quite sometime and continued bombing campaigns every so often. And to be honest, I don't think anyone really cared about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. The capture of Saddam Hussein may or may not speed up the discovery of an NBC weapons program (or the intent of restarting one), to me it makes no difference either way. I believe whatever there was of Hussein's weapons program is so widely scattered about the countryside, it'll be a long while before we ever see anything substantial that isn't a lab beaker in a suspicious truck.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If nobody really cares about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then why did they go to war over them? This agruement just helps my first point. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Bin Laden's is no longer an issue. That is the latest comment from Mr Bush. Even though they know where he is. Where did you get that we know where he is? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...shows/binladen/ I try to find the article, where they found him. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I don't know anything about the link between the United States government and the Irish Republican Army, and I could honestly care less. Again, I do not believe that framing this as a war on terrorism was a wise decision. With all the apologizing Bush has done on behalf of Islam, it would indeed be difficult to reframe the scope of this war now, and I never said it would be easy. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You don't care that the American government will not lift a finger to stop bombings against it's closest ally? What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Jan 2, 2004, 05:08 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	Thats not quite true, Bill Clinton did help greatly in developing the Good Friday agreement, and was seen as a friend to both the Republicans and the British government. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 3, 2004, 03:48 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
mrhotdogla Guest Posts: n/a	"I haven't seen you post anything remotely constructive" I HAVE POSTED MANY CONSTUCTIVE POSTS, ITS NOT MY FAULT YOU ARENT OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO SEE THAT. "and will no longer respond unless you have something pertinent to say." SINCE WHEN AM I HERE TO PLEASE YOU OR SPARK ANY PROVOCATIVE THOUGHT IN YOUR MIND. "(watch the caps lock)" ITS NOT MY FAULT IF THAT IS HOW YOU TAKE IT. "I really don't have that kind of time to waste with this." SINCE I DIDNT BOW TO YOU OR AGREE WITH YOU, ALL OF A SUDDEN IM A WASTE OF TIME. CHE WAS A TERRORIST BY THE WAY...... OOPS DONT READ THAT, ITS A WASTE OF TIME. TOOL.

Jan 3, 2004, 07:17 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG) If the only parallel you have between Gulf War 1 and Operation Iraqi Freedom is that they both happened to be heading into recessionary periods, I don't want to hear another word of your circumstantial evidence. It's just like the "No Blood For Oil" slogan, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. A perceived benefit of a war campaign does not make it a primary objective. And honestly, I could care less if we do purchase their oil. If it means lower gas prices, good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What are you talking about, I also drew the allusion beetween the Islamic neighbors not supporting the decision to fully invade Iraq in the post previous, can we connect the dots? "A perceived benefit" is that what you call Foreign policy objectives now? It is not in the Saudi's interests to have american or "free market" controls on such a large oil reserve as Iraq, as it would bring the price of oil down if Iraq was outside the influence of OPEC. That means their is an economic incentive for keeping Iraq in turmoil. And if it's not the primary objective, then why falsify official documents about WMD hmmmm? Seems to me if their were WMD, the great Intelligence agencies of our nations wouldnt have to manufacture claims now would they? It sure cant be humanitarian in nature, as the original Gulf War would have contiued in light of how Saddam moved against the Shiite and Kurdish rebelllions afterwards. So I guess according to your reasoning the U.S has NO PRIMARY OBJECTIVES now right? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG) I see you have no idea what foreign policy is or should be, and that's fine. Most people of your ideological standing don't. Your idea of diplomacy is a beautiful picnic under the sun, where the ambassadors from various countries gather around in a circle on the front lawn of the UN, discussing peace in between sips of tea. Politics is a dirty business, and a country must look out for its best interests. When the United States stops doing that, then I'll see cause for concern.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "a country must look out for its best interests." Ha, you paint this like the U.S is a pedestrian crossing an intersection when in reality the actions are more like a driver who thinks they are above the law. Yes I now what you think is diplomacy:</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG) (gunboat diplomacy should never have gone away)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ha thanks for the history lesson, but you skipped a few details, like how your gunboat diplomacy was instrumental in carving what is the Iraq of today(and most of the Middle east for that matter) at the fall of the ottomon empire after WWpart1; unnaturaly carving up cultural families in its now very unstable collection of people. Cry and call the Kettle black Tea pot, when it was american and british imperialism forcing their beleifs on Islamics, then the Islamics learned that they could do the same: what a shock. But then again your foreign policy works only for itself, it has no view of fair, always us VS them. You laughably cant even see your own role in the making of your bed in the Middle east, except when you cry complicity, oh good lord why doesnt the american consumer have more self control; we have merely programmed them to consume in order to make ourselves rich, curse the unequal allocation of rescources, curse people different from us, curse the entropic nature of capital, Complicit IT IS ALL COMPLICIT!!! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG) Then they are free to leave and follow Lindh's example.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeh, because if they dont share your opinion they are not a citizen anymore? Lindh was a pathetic case of dissilutionment, but I cant say I blame him, he could have went down more self fullfilling avenues then prostrate himself again before another opressive and obnoxious group of thugs. Once is usually never good enough for PIGS like you. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capital PIG) Uh, unlike declaring the United States a Christian nation, declaring Iran a democratic theocracy actually holds water (pardon the pun). The United States has a strong Christian tradition, the separation of Church and state ensures that it remains simply a tradition. Iran has no such clause. And what the hell are you talking about when you say "Christian terrorists?" You realize this example is ridiculous, don't you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not when GWB declares that he has approval from god to go ahead with an Iraq war. Your seperation of church and state have become very questionable of late, being agaist the war on terror equals being unpatriotic, certain states teaching creationism in science classes, please teach me about secularism? No it's not absurd, "Oklahoma bombing" anyone? to them the federal government wasnt acting in a very christian matter and needed to be punished....? I consider anyone supporting militant judaism a christian terrorist too, perhaps would biblical terrorist be better? Different interpretations, all the same book( and at least the Israelis have nukes, so they can actually be considered a threat to peace in the region). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (CapitalPIG) I'm afraid that I would never apologize for anything the United States has done that was in the name of the perpetuation of her existence. Call it pride, I call it survival of the fittest. If you think we haven't been trying to help the inhabitants of Afghanistan since Enduring Freedom, you're sorely mistaken. It is the inhabitants who do not help themselves. A culture is judged by its applicability, and their culture I rate as one of the worst.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Castill) Liberals, leftwingers, and other various sorts on the Left have very little understanding of "politics" and "international relations". Think of politics as the men who clean the sewers and take out the garbage. Its a dirty job. They stick their hands into filthy mess, while you enjoy the fruits of their labour (and go "ewwww" when you need to do something a little dirty!). Who fights wars, while you debate in your universities and college? Who is blown up by suicide bombers, while you ponder the necessity of war in the Middle East? Certainly not the pampered, often liberal/leftwing college students. They're the armchair generals, armchair politicians, and armchair humanitarians. Politics is a dirty word. It is a dirty place to be. Politicians DO sit with each other under the lawn sipping tea and discussing peace. Then they kill each other after tea.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh my goodness look at those brave backstabbing politicians, guess who has to fight their wars, the poor and middle class. But it's their own fault right, just like the pig said: it's the Afghanis fault that western countries do invade their country, train their Islamic followers in geurilla tacticas and then let them use those tactics against the soviets; ooops and they decided to act eventually against their Masters, where do they get the nerve to be so disrespectful to their cultural superiors? Who will shed a tear when you die in ball of flame from a terrorist bomb, or are under the boot, with a gun to your head held by the people your politics abused? I will shed a tear for their pain. Disrespect for human life sows the seeds of your own destruction. <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Jan 3, 2004, 08:54 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	[quote=mrhotdogla,] CHE WAS A TERRORIST BY THE WAY...... [quote] Your point is? He was also a doctor, a tactition, a master strategist, a brilliant soldier, a human, an asthmatic and a hero. Terrorism is a tool, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It's the purpose it's put to that makes it right or wrong. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 4, 2004, 05:11 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
mrhotdogla Guest Posts: n/a	"Terrorism is a tool, there is nothing inherently wrong with it." SO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS, I FIGURED AS SUCH. "a master strategist, a brilliant soldier" WHO GOT CAUGHT MAKING TROUBLE IN BOLIVIA, NOW THANKFULLY HE IS DEAD. SO MUCH FOR YOUR TACTITION. CHE WAS A PIECE OF CHIT.

Jan 4, 2004, 08:10 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Bayou Igneous Magma Location: Calgary Alberta Canada Posts: 154	Hey MRHOTDOGLA, isnt their an NRA/KKK forum you would be happier posting at, I mean at least you would have peers of equal intellectual stature their. I thought sean kept the usership of this forum open to only a select few in order to keep stupid asinine people like you from posting here? Considering all of your posts could be considered abuse, I am surprised no one has reported you yet? Shall I be the 1st one? <span style='font-size:16pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Impact'><span style='color:green'>Vote NDP "The independence of art for the revolution. "The revolution for the complete liberation of art!"</span></span></span>

Jan 4, 2004, 05:57 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,) "Terrorism is a tool, there is nothing inherently wrong with it." SO YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS, I FIGURED AS SUCH. "a master strategist, a brilliant soldier" WHO GOT CAUGHT MAKING TROUBLE IN BOLIVIA, NOW THANKFULLY HE IS DEAD. SO MUCH FOR YOUR TACTITION. CHE WAS A PIECE OF CHIT.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course I support terrorists when they are fighting for worthwhile causes. Like the revolutionaries of the American War of Indepedance. Or the Maquis in Nazi occupied France. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 5, 2004, 01:11 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Terrorism is just an advanced form of guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare is sneaky tatics to hit a bigger more powerful enemy. Sneaky == Sensible. If you want to win the war. You fight on your terms. Sun Tzu art of war. Terrorism is one step further. Decleare war on the populace or infustructure. To apply political pressure on their government. If you get what you want, you win. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Jan 5, 2004, 07:18 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,174	I wouldn't call terrorism an advancement of guerilla warfare, it is a technique that you can use as a guerilla though. A guerilla warfare is unconventional warfare. Basically, any warfare conducted outside of a traditional military structure. For some of the best info on guerilla warfare, read Clausewitz or (much more readable) Che's own "Guerilla Warfare". It is focused on Latin America, so the territories you apply it to may be quite different, but as long as you have a grasp of soldiering you can modify and re-apply succesfully. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 23, 2004, 03:28 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
dalinlooter Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mrhotdogla,) NEVER MIND ALL THE 300,000 OF HIS OWN PEOPLE HE MURDERED. NEVER MIND THE RAPE TABLES AND TORTURE CHAMBERS. NEVER MIND THE BULLYING OF KUWAIT AND IRAN AND ISRAEL. SADDAM HAD TO GO, THAT IS FINAL. SYRIA, IRAN, NORTH KOREA ARE NEXT IF THEY DONT BEHAVE, WHY ELSE DO YOU THINK LIBYA IS PLAYING NICE. KADDAFI LEARNED HIS LESSON WITH REAGAN, NOW HE IS SPEAKING UP SO HE STAYS OUT OF TROUBLE. REMEMBER THIS. IF THEY CAUSE TROUBLE, THEY ARE NEXT. AND THE SOONER THE BETTER. THE MIDDLE EAST WILL BE MORE STABLE AFTER ALL OF THIER ARMS ARE TURNED TO ASH, AND WE INJECT FREEDOM AND FREE TRADE. .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No one disagrees to these claims of murder, rape and bullying. Now the question is what are we doing in Iraq? Average death of innocent Iraqis stand at 15/day by American fire alone, at least 6 rapes are reported every day by American soldiers in Iraq. The Abu Gharib prison torture is being investigated by Pentagon. Did we depose Saddam to do all this? Or are we unintentionally Brutalizing Iraq in the name of nation building? If so I think we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible leaving Iraq to United Nations and help UN to do the nation building there. The values that built America for more than 200 years never authorize anyone to do what is happening in Iraq. I am not accusing our brave soldiers here, they are an occupying force and this will happen but when it happens we cannot blame people who did the same.

Jan 26, 2004, 11:35 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Paul Bacon Sizzle Posts: 287	# Nonviolence.org Discussion Board :: View topic - This is great! ... Go to: http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html Have fun _________________ Freedom in the mere sense of independence is meaningless. ... http://www.nonviolence.org/comment/viewtop...t=250&view=next

Jan 27, 2004, 11:05 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Only 6 Iraqis raped a day by US soldier? Thats 100 times less than the Soviet rate of raping. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jan 27, 2004, 12:52 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Only 6 Iraqis raped a day by US soldier? Thats 100 times less than the Soviet rate of raping.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You keep pointing fingers at others while ignoring the point in itself. If the American Soldiers did something wrong, that in itself is bad. If the Soviets did something worse, then that in itself is evil but does not make the first act less wrong. This seems to me like shooting someone and arguing before the judge that you know someone who has shot -more- people. I've never known an occupying force for behaving. I guess it has something to do with human nature. When weak willed men get put in a position where they have a lot of stress and they can force their will on someone else they sometimes will. I would say the US has done a good job at keeping stress levels much lower than Russia. Too bad there are still people in the army which shouldn't be there. I guess you can't filter them beforehand. Hope & Dream