|
06 Dec 04 - 09:07 PM (#1349445) Subject: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Ebbie "The Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the "self-serving hypocrisy" of George W Bush's administration over the Middle East. "The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank "strategic communications" report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld. "On "the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds", the report says, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended". More |
|
06 Dec 04 - 09:13 PM (#1349455) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: robomatic It's pretty important that our leaders and bureaucrats are allowed a measure of free thought and free speech. The honesty in these reports does not all at once mean that the 'jig is up' 'we've lost'. They are valuable items of self criticism which should make things better in the long run. They are part of the story, not the whole story. We won't know if the war is a success or not until it's over. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 09:25 PM (#1349460) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Ebbie, what the hell is an ordinary Muslim as opposed to an extraordinary Muslim. I have yet to see one "ordinary" Muslim leader denounce Al Queda on any major talk show or news network. I think they are out there, just scared shitless. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 09:26 PM (#1349461) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos This story is telling. The original article is fromt he Herald. An excerpt: On "the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds", the report says, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended". "American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies." Referring to the repeated mantra from the White House that those who oppose the US in the Middle East "hate our freedoms", the report says: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedoms', but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support, for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. "Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination." I don't like saying I told you so. But I did, and so did a dozen others on these threads who were certain the invasion of Iraq was a serious, colossal error in judgment for exactly the reasons this report cites. A |
|
06 Dec 04 - 09:31 PM (#1349466) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Peace Good post, Ebbie. The article (assessment) is excellent. Let's hope someone listens and doesn't get into the mindset that it refers to everyone else. It's simple enough that it can be read by Bush, and IMO, it nails the problem squarely. Of course, it really deals with how to wage the war more effectively. And how to try and salvage the peace. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 10:57 PM (#1349532) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: dianavan Now I don't think I'm an exception because I saw a lot of people marching and I heard a lot of people trying to tell the U.S. administration (including the U.N.) that invading Iraq was not the way to go. So whats up? They think that once they get elected they don't have to listen? They think that being elected means they can do whatever they want to do no matter how many people will die? Is this some kind of mea culpa? Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Is this supposed to make them look humble? I think they should be tried for war crimes or abuse of power or both. The Bush administration is incompetent, ignorant, and dangerous. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 11:06 PM (#1349540) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: LadyJean My church wrote to congressmen and the president urging him to stay out of Iraq. We're a large congregation. But he didn't care. He doesn't care what anyone thinks. I hope the rest of the world understands that. If a poll showed that 95 percent of the American people believed the White House was blue, Bill Clinton would have called it the Blue House. Bush does not care about the voters. He does what he likes. I would admire his principals, if they didn't suck. A lot of the people in my new neighborhood have sons and daughters in the service. I bought the shovel for my garden, and the flex line for my stove at the local hardware store that has a blue star in the window, meaning someone in their family is in the service. Their sons are the ones bleeding in Iraq, so they need to believe that this war is good and necessary. Now there is the problem. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 11:37 PM (#1349561) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Ebbie From what I hear, the chances are good that bush most of the time doesn't even know people's opinions. He doesn't read for fun or profit, he reads - I doubt that it's without difficulty - what his people prepare for him. Given staff and cabinet who play to his prejudices and preset opinions, who is going to tell him things to the contrary? If the man had dyslexia - as one of his brothers does- I could cut him more slack as long as he worked with his strengths in dealing with it. However, he is adamant in his opinion that he does not have it. It has often been remarked by people who have known him well for years that he is the most "incurious" man they have ever met. I suspect that is the primary problem. Our lovely president, I ask you. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 03:26 AM (#1349660) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Boab Four more years. I'm betting that most of America will rue the day the slogan reared its ugly head. It seems , by all recent events, that G.W. is perfectly capable after all, of finding a team even more vile than his first one---with the exception of Donald, of course; his must be the voice he mistakes for God's standing behind him and pointing out the "rewards" that are within his grasp if he just keeps on keeping on. No---Donald's ok--his job is secure ---there is nobody "better' to fill it. There is faint hope that somehow the growing consequences of the direction in which America is being hauled will percolate through into addled and power-drunk minds. Faint hope, but hope all the same. My opinion aint worth much to several of the hard-righters on the forum, but I will speak, all the same; I am afraid [genuinely] that the National Guard now having its tour of duty extended arbitrarily in Iraq [volunteers!] will have to be deployed AT HOME before this crew completes its depradations. I cannot see the American people--even some of those who enthusiastically backed the liars club--- being able to stand back supinely and simply allow the acceleration of the demise of real democracy in their country to continue. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 05:25 AM (#1349708) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Ron Davies As I said earlier, I called the White House comment line----before the invasion---- and told them I was a registered Republican who was absolutely convinced the invasion was a disastrous error in judgment for exactly the reasons quoted---specifically that pictures of dead women and children, sure to result from the invasion, and then broadcast on Al-Jazeera, would create far more terrorists----worldwide---than the invasion would kill. But Bush, of course, knew better. Yeah, right. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 07:41 AM (#1349776) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: artbrooks Since this article uses open quotes without closed quotes, I'd be interested in a link to the report itself, if there actually was one, to see what is actually in it and what is the opinion of the article's author. For example, I'd rather doubt that an official US government document would refer to the "self-serving hypocrisy" of George W Bush's administration. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 08:51 AM (#1349811) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Greg F. They think that once they get elected they don't have to listen? Of course they don't have to listen. They get directions direct from their "christian" "god". You obviously haven't been paying attention, if you can pose that question... |
|
07 Dec 04 - 10:12 AM (#1349886) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Wolfgang ...perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self-indulgent We would never say so in Europe, wouldn't we? Wolfgang |
|
07 Dec 04 - 11:10 AM (#1349939) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: George Papavgeris Amazing to see this, and refreshing too. Nevertheless, it stops shy of one of the obvious (IMO) conclusions: It mentions that the Muslim world is afraid of US support to the tyrannies in the Muslim world (Emirates, Saudi etc). In fact it refers to this fear as being one of the biggest factors behind their suspicion towards US policies. Yet, instead of concluding that these policies need to be reviewed (as in "are we backing the wrong horse here, guys?"), it only emphasises the need for "improved communication". Not "change what we sell", but "sell better". Where I come from, you can pour all the perfume you want on crap - it will still smell bad. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 12:11 PM (#1349997) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: robomatic El Greko: Eventually crap dries, in some markets, the guano market, you can actually sell prehistoric crap... Back to my point, which is a valuable one, as I'm the only one so far making it - I'm listening to a radio show where a New York Times photographer is being lauded over his telling photos of the war. One of the incidents he photographed was of the inside of a car with three dead family members, who according to the caption, drove through a US checkpoint and were riddled with bullets. A member of the family found his brother in the car, and towed it home. The NYT photographer took shots inside the car, followed the car as it was towed home, and photographed the female members of the family as they made the tragic discovery of their husband, brother, and son. The photographer sounds like a nice guy. He took well-framed shots. But are we learning a pivotal message of this war? Doesn't this happen in every war? It doesn't explain if the cause was poor language skills on the part of one or both parties, lack of clarity at the soldier's post (though I've yet to see a military checkpoint where it isn't clear there are armed men in uniforms and you're supposed to stop for inspection - even within the United States - and you can get shot going through them - even within the United States). The show is a call in. Moments ago a young US soldier, home from Iraq, made the point that the news is concentrating on the insurgency, not the great amount of Iraq that is experiencing relative peace and greatly improved infrastructure. The reporter, and indeed the program host, told the soldier, "we understand your point, but let's say we're driving on the way to your water project, and on the way we see a plume of smoke go up, we're going to turn away from your water project and go to the smoke." I'm making a point with relevance to this thread. These days you hear about the nasty stuff pretty much as soon as it happens, unfiltered by censors, but also by sense . Many people are so against the war, so outraged, that they are leaping at every plume of smoke. I think there are reasonable arguments against starting this war in the way we did. I think there were both dishonorable and honorable motivations that impelled US actions. I personally think the President's father handled the situation better than W and his 'crew' have handled our current placement. If the US administration is considering documents displaying self-criticism, that's a good thing. That's how problems get recognized and solved. Again, we have some real problems in the war and how it is being conducted. But we have a world that needs fixing, badly, and too many folk have their heads in the sand. We should be encouraged that we can establish forums and exchange opinions our own selves. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 01:54 PM (#1350094) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Ebbie "Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypo crisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising … in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination." From Amos's post uptop at 9:26. Amos linked to the original news article. artbrooks, it seems likely to me that the Truthout article puts its own spin on the Pentagon document. That from "seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy" they got "self-serving hypocrisy" of George W Bush's administration over the Middle East. " That may be a disingenuous ploy but it does make one think. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 02:21 PM (#1350132) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: artbrooks Ebbie, I know that there was a link to the original news article, which is also full of quotation marks (some closed, some not), but what I'm looking for is a link to the Pentagon document. I am no more inclined to believe news media reports than I am government press releases. The media exist only to sell advertising and reflect the biases of their owners/publishers. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 02:28 PM (#1350137) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Greg F. Isn't their Christian God your Christian God, also? Or do you have a different one? Or none at all? or one that you just roll up and smoke? |
|
07 Dec 04 - 02:38 PM (#1350147) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Clint Keller "These days you hear about the nasty stuff pretty much as soon as it happens, unfiltered by censors, but also by sense . Many people are so against the war, so outraged, that they are leaping at every plume of smoke." Trouble is, there are things like this, which is not out of context nor sensationalized. _______ Fri Dec 3,10:05 AM ET By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government says. Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday. _____ This seems to be straight reporting, and it supports the accusation of "self-serving hypocrisy" laid against the Bush administration. You know, the people with values. Wasn't it Kipling's crocodile who never killed anything? He just held them under water and the river drowned them. So the US never tortures anybody, but we deport them to countries who do and we accept the work of torturers.... This is not the America I grew up in. clint |
|
07 Dec 04 - 02:44 PM (#1350158) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Clint Keller Martin, Greg put quotes around "christian." It has a particular meaning in this context. You might want to study the rules of written English. clint |
|
07 Dec 04 - 04:15 PM (#1350245) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Boab ---and I think Greg implies that they wouldn't recognise the Christ if He were to land in their lap. Their heads are fitted backwards. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 04:17 PM (#1350246) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous I think you are both full of crap. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 04:23 PM (#1350253) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Boab Unless you are on automatic top-up, Martin, you can't be full of crap. Have a wee glass of Buckley's at Christmas---it tastes awful, but it works! |
|
07 Dec 04 - 04:42 PM (#1350281) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Works at what? giving you bad breath? Buckley's...... what is that? Ok, I'' rephrase that. You are 99% full of crap. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 04:58 PM (#1350295) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Ebbie artbrooks, what you are asking for is to see the original report that the Pentagon office submitted to Donald Rumsfeld, right? It is not clear to me who has access to that document and whether it was simply leaked to the press. Maybe there is more info to come. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 05:08 PM (#1350303) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank A must read on this issue is: Unembedded in Iraq By Charles Shaw, Newtopia Posted on December 4, 2004, Printed on December 6, 2004 http://www.alternet.org/story/20669/ The most honorable thing the US could do now is to pull out. The Iraqis feel that any civil war is preferable to what the American troops are doing there now. Most of the soldiers and marines are finding themselves more demoralized day by day. The new recruits are gung ho but the ones that have been around a while are scared, shooting anything that moves and smoking dope when they can find it. And now with the "Stop Loss", they are mad and are going to court. 100 attacks per day are being delivered. The casualties are under-reported. The war is lost. What you get from the main news media is propaganda. The Iraqi "insurgents" are the Iraqi people fighting for their country. Sunnis and Shias will team up against the occupation. Even the Kurds know that they have more to fear from the American occupation and from Turkey than any of their own neighbors. It's time to wake up on this issue! As for Al Quaeda being in the country, that may not be true either. If so, it would be a very small percentage of the resistance. If you don't believe this, look at the faces of Iraqis being herded about by American soldiers. Frank |
|
07 Dec 04 - 05:30 PM (#1350329) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Frank, the most honorable thing you could do right now is pull out your schwank. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 02:49 AM (#1350686) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: George Papavgeris No such talk please, this is a family forum. You may be consenting adults, but all the same - if it hurts, you should have used vaseline. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 02:56 AM (#1350689) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bo Vandenberg The whole idea that everyone talks of this war but Bush didn't approach congress to go to war. How can one defend not declaring war on Iraq? How can one defend justifying torture & confinement without representation? These are people who are spending billions of tax dollars and Iraq oil dollars while Iraqi children starve and die. These are the same people that pass omnibus government bills constructed to be beyond comprehension and debate. Be Republican or Democrat but fight to be Honest! |
|
08 Dec 04 - 11:11 AM (#1350981) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,observer Martin Gibson is proof positive that as an individual's intelligence DECREASES its arrogance INCREASES! Martin, you twit! |
|
08 Dec 04 - 11:28 AM (#1350995) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Guest, Observer There's mucous in your eyes. you are not too good at what you see. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 12:29 PM (#1351043) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Big Al Whittle I hesitate to give advice. But it seems to me that you Americans must take on board that you are in a war situation. Your troops are not there to get killed, or in a policing capacity. they are engaged in a war. That means all kinds of savagery just to survive, and certainly to win. You were mislead if you ever thought otherwise. You must try to be as brave as your soldiers have to be to see this through. If you do not want a President that leads you into war, you have access to freedom of the press, right of assembly and democratic process. You must make more full and vigorous use of them and get government policy changed. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 04:11 PM (#1351243) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Our president was just re-elected by a majority of it's citizens. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 04:49 PM (#1351272) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Big Al Whittle True enough Martin, but these people got the right to bitch about it. My feeling is however all this stuff about Bush being a stinker may be right, who knows. In a way thats his business, beside the point. Just like the cigar business, said nothing really important about Clinton. If he's doing the wrong thing about Iraq though. That's something else. You must organise and use all the proper systems that exist for expression of disquiet. We know these systems work. we have seen them work in our lifetimes. Just ennumerating the President's faults in a 'how do I hate thee, let me count the ways.....' thing. I can't see it leads anywhere, if you know what I mean. Even in England we heard about his religious beliefs, his insularity (never travelled) ex drinker problems. If that was going to make any difference to anything, it would have done already. And stuff about our troops are doing bad stuff in Iraq, well war is bad stuff. Very bad. this talk isn't Frank, well not very frank |
|
08 Dec 04 - 04:55 PM (#1351278) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous these people can bitch about it or they can find something else to do with their time because their bitching is counter-productive and non-productive. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 04:58 PM (#1351284) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Peace It is also counterproductive to laud Bush. He has weaknesses, and it is the responsibility of every American to recognize them. That includes him. I agree that saying he's an a$$hole doesn't help. But it also doesn't help to keep saying he's President and better than the people who elected him, or didn't but got him anyway. He isn't. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:06 PM (#1351293) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous He's a man, Brucie. Bitching and moaning because he got elected is sour grapes, non-productive, and devicive. No one is saying he is better, but the ones here who do not respect the office and continue their ranting will have a chance again in 4 years to elect who they want. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:09 PM (#1351298) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Peace I agree. However, he's still the elected guy and he has to know where his people stand in relation to his policies and the actions he performs in their name. That's the nature of the office. The better Presidents have listened to their people. I am not sure he does that. I am not insulting him, just saying he's not as clued-in to his population as maybe he could be. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:22 PM (#1351309) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR I agree with robomatic. We won't know how Iraq is going to turn out until it is over. Would any of you naysayers have thought three years ago that the effort in Afghanstan would have turned out as well as it has? Didn't think so. Always look on the gloomy side of life. DougR |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:22 PM (#1351310) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Too many people sell him short, I believe. I believe he is tuned in to at least 52% of what Americans are saying. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:26 PM (#1351313) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Peace That leaves the voices of 48% unheard. That's all I'm sayin', Martin. I know the majority 'like' him. But there is a large minority who feel he's not responsive to their issues. A house divided . . . . |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:42 PM (#1351337) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank Bush hasn't leveled with the American public. Most of his followers haven't a clue about what's going on over there. There is a propaganda war being waged by the media. Other countries in the world, however, know what's going on. Bush is probably the most unpopular president throughout the rest of the world and the least trusted. This may not matter to some Americans but others would like our country to be respected by other nations. Frank |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:46 PM (#1351341) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous As usual Frank you talk in the usual wide genralizations. Have you talked first hand to "most of his followers?" do you think that that you know what really has meaning to them? |
|
08 Dec 04 - 05:47 PM (#1351343) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank There once was a president named Bushie Who found a position so cushy. It wasn't so hard in the National Guard Cause he didn't get off of his tushy. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 08:04 PM (#1351448) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,petr well - undoubtedly the US administration didnt plan well for this war, however there is an international islamic terrorist network, (and has been even under the Clinton administration) except that it isnt a top-down hierarchy, and its main target isnt even the US. It is Europe. if one looks at the attacks in Madrid of March 11, even after the new Spanish govt. declared it would pull its troops from Iraq a couple of backpack bombs were found along Spanish railway lines several days later. (what was the intent of that?) Even in september something a number people were arrested who planned to blow up a number of Spanish buildings, which could have killed thousands. the network extended to Italy and Germany, England. the evidence indicates that a lot of this was planned long before 9/11. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 09:01 PM (#1351508) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Frank, I doubt if you served either. But that could be the best thing you wrote. Someone should tell you the '60s are long over. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 09:32 PM (#1351529) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert I find it very interesting that most of the predictions that were made prior to the invasion of Iraq by the anti-Iraq-war folks here at Mudcat are now proving to be true... And a few we didn't even forsee like one of our troops, as in "Support the Troops", standing up to Don Rumsfeld today asking why the heck they had to go to junk yards to scrounge metal to make their humvee's safer... No, none of would have predicted that not only did the Bush folks have no real reason for invading Iraq but once there they would cram down America's throat "Support the Troops" while not doing it themselves????????????? Fact is stranger than fiction, that's fir sure..... Bobert |
|
08 Dec 04 - 09:46 PM (#1351536) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Burke Here's the original report. Be warned that it is a .pdf file of 111 pages. If you don't like to go straight to PDF's start here, it titled "Strategic Communication." It's dated September, but seems to have been released to the public at the end of November. I searched "Defence Science Board" on Google & in addition to the Board's web site, I found other summaries of the report. The solution to this problem being better communication & propaganda seems to miss the point entirely. Found this on p. 49: "Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World is not one of "dissemination of information," or even one of crafting and delivering the "right" message. Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none — the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam. Inevitably therefore, whatever Americans do and say only serves the party that has both the message and the "loud and clear" channel: the enemy." |
|
08 Dec 04 - 09:51 PM (#1351539) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Burke A Google search with "Defense Science Board" will get US articles. I know US & UK spelling is different, but why would the spelling of the name of an official body be corrected? |
|
08 Dec 04 - 10:16 PM (#1351550) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Bobert, you were 100% correct. You predicted hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Someone poopoo'ed you like crazy. Turns out you were right. You predicted street-by-street urban guerilla warfare. Someone ridiculed you. You were right. Someone even said, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, that it wouldn't actually happen - it was part of a get-tough diplomatic effort by the new "grown-ups" in charge. They were wrong. Dead wrong. Nearly 1300 (American) dead wrong. And over 100,000 (Iraqi) dead wrong. Before the Abu Ghraib (and now Guantanamo, and God knows where else) torture scandals, someone claimed that the US invasion represented the "armed wing of Amnesty International." Wrong. Several people have claimed, at various times, that our troops would be home in several months, or a year, or two years... Wrong again. And again. And again. Come on you war supporters. Challenge me on this. I'll go find the F'in quotes for you, and I'll put your names on them. I am sick of being polite. You were wrong. You are still wrong. Just as you wished then, people were listening to what you said. But, as you probably don't wish now, some people remember what you said. But don't worry, its not just you. Roughly half (maybe a little more if the vote count was fair and accurate) of Americans have the same short and/or selective memories that you do. Or perhaps they don't think that honesty is a "moral value". Yeah Okay, I stole that line from Howard Dean, but if the Foo Shits... Screw politics. Put your knees down. Think. Talk to Jesus, or God, or Ba'al, or whoever you think is in charge. Do you really think this was a good idea? Do you really think this mission has been accomplished? Do you really think this mission is in capable hands? Do you really think you have been told the truth all along about the motives, methods and goals of this mission? Don't answer me. Answer yourself. The easiest person to fool is yourself. Okay that line was stolen from Richard Feynman, but if the Foo Shits... BTW, this rant represents the views of TIA, and not necessarily those of Bobert, and he is not responsible for this content. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 10:20 PM (#1351554) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Peace Took me until a few months ago to change my mind on this war. But it is changed, for sure. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 10:34 PM (#1351562) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Ebbie Good for you, Tia. And if we had said it loudly and frequently enough in the runup to the election- using slogans and buzz words, a tactic the Republicans used so effectively- it is hard to believe that more people would not have come to see it the same way. On the other hand, no one on the Mudcat seems to have changed his tune, so maybe it's a lost cause. sigh |
|
08 Dec 04 - 10:40 PM (#1351564) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert And fir the record, TIA, yer rant fully represents the feelings of the Bobert. Fully.... The Bobert |
|
09 Dec 04 - 01:39 AM (#1351683) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Boab Doug R--everything in Afghanistan may well appear "rosy" in comparison with the Iraq killing spree---but if you really believe that the great new era of "freedom" has dawned in Kabul and surrounds, then you must have a stars and bars over your head and a set of head-phones plugged into Fox News! |
|
09 Dec 04 - 05:07 AM (#1351774) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Big Al Whittle Supposing everything you said is right. It may well be. Try and get your head round this. Okay we accept that you warned us. We should have optimised our democratic rights, changed the course of history, we didn't. None of it is your fault...the fact remains You are NOW in a war situation. All kinds of terrible things are going to happen. Your best option is to win the war. Any positive ideas about how to do this I'm sure will be gratefully received. Whilst the war is raging everything else is an irrelevance. That is what war is about. Its an expression of the national will, my nation as well as yours sadly. |
|
09 Dec 04 - 07:18 PM (#1352429) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank Martin, the 60's are just beginning. We're seeing more young men defecting to Canada rather than fight this ungodly war. It smells more and more like Vietnam. There was a news blackout on that one too. In the meantime we have Afghanistan which Bush has saved as a narco-mafia state which controlls 60% of heroin related sales in the world. The warlords who operate under Karzai are what we would call in the US gangsters who intimidate the poppy growers who supply the heroin market. Some democracy! Actually, more and more young people are questioning the judgement of the Bush Administration and another prediction for you. In order to keep the "Crusade" going Bush will have to reinstate the draft. Frank |
|
09 Dec 04 - 07:43 PM (#1352446) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert First of all, weelittle, you assume thsat the war in Iraq can be won... That is a false assumption... It was lost the day Bush started it... Just stay tuned and watch as Bush will find winning the war in Iraq a thoudsand times harder than stealing elections... The only thing worse about the war in Iraq than the war in Vietnam is that Vietnam was supposed to the the "lesson"... Most everyone else learned it. Maybe Bush was too busy AWOL and learning how to fake Chrisianity at the time... Now our kids, as well as over 100,000, have died while Bush plays out his own Vietnam... Meanwhile, because he has spead our military so thin, genocide is rampant in the Sudan and the US doesn't have the resources to fight the moral war, and step in there. You want my idea. Announce a 30 day complete pull out from Iraq and dispatch those troops to Sudan. Iraq will just fall into civil war whenever the US pulls out so might as well let it rip and go do some good for mankind... Plus, at the same time of annoucing the pull out, announce that the US will freeze it's foriegn aid to Isreal until the setttlements are given back to the Palestianians... This would send a clear message around the world the the US stands for the right things... Bobert |
|
09 Dec 04 - 08:45 PM (#1352480) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Big Al Whittle well its a point of view. I don't think you will get many people going along with it though, do you? If you are going to oppose Mr Bush you will need a plan that more people will subscribe to. Thats the thing about democracy. You need a lot of people to share your point of view and plan of action, if you want to change things. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. But I don't think I would do that. Best wishes. |
|
09 Dec 04 - 09:56 PM (#1352546) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Frank, the draft will never happen and you are obviously in your glory thinking the 60s are back. I think you should fire up another joint. I'm glad we helped Afghanistan. Over time the heroin traffic will be wiped out. I'llbe honest with you Frank. The fundamentalist Moslems are our biggest threat. Everyone knows it's us or them. I hope everything is done for "us" Frank, your 1960s paranoia is showing. better watch out in that rear view mirror. Must be hard living on the fringe of society for all of these years, isn't it? |
|
10 Dec 04 - 04:55 PM (#1353438) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,petr the draft is already here, they reinstated into service a woman (grandmother now) who served in Vietname. (60mins) so for some people Iraq, is literally another Vietnam. |
|
10 Dec 04 - 05:38 PM (#1353476) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Bobert for president! Boab: so you are among the minority in the U. S. who think Afghans were better off under the Taliban, right? DougR |
|
10 Dec 04 - 06:10 PM (#1353510) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Go do some reading. Most Afghans still ARE under the Taliban. |
|
10 Dec 04 - 08:12 PM (#1353601) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: akenaton Boab...Ah Ay thocht ye cam frae "that place o' Scotlands' Isle, that bears the name o' auld king Coil" Or is it Irvine..... Alabama |
|
10 Dec 04 - 08:36 PM (#1353618) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Ebbie Not to sugarcoat the Taliban, but under them, the poppy trade in Afghanistan was not permitted. But under Uncle Sam it is, and it has become the leading industry in that impoverished country. We're going to bring Democracy to Iraq - which is resisting our domination every step of the way - but we aren't able to bring a semblance of it to Afghanistan??? |
|
11 Dec 04 - 04:40 PM (#1354240) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Wolfgang TIA, let me add to your post about who was right or wrong predicting the course of the war in Iraq. Your post looks a tiny bit more one-sided than you surely wanted it to look. Some anti-war camp posters have predicted that WMD evidence would likely be planted. It looks like they were completely wrong and that the US government did rather admit an error than plant wrong evidence. Let me cite the Jeane Dixon of Mudcat as one voice for many: But what's your take on the Bush administration wiggling out of their situation? Planted evidence? If Vegas were puttin' odds on "planted evidence", what do you figure the odds would be" 9-2? (Bobert) Wolfgang |
|
11 Dec 04 - 04:46 PM (#1354244) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Peace Wolfgang: That's a bit heavy-handed, IMO. Maybe he meant 9-2 against. And maybe he was wrong. BUT, it doesn't necessitate a remark like that from you about Bobert. You're a better guy than that. Making him the butt of that kind of humour does you no honour. BM |
|
11 Dec 04 - 05:35 PM (#1354271) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Ebbie Ah. That's using the stiletto nicely, brucie. Doesn't that beat fulminatin;? |
|
11 Dec 04 - 05:39 PM (#1354275) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: dianavan Wolfgang - I believe the U.S. would do anything and everything to justify aggression. It is not unreasonable to suggest that they would stoop to planting evidence. Its been done before and will be done again. Whether or not they were wrong in one instance, makes no difference. What is being said is that the U.S. is not 'playing by the rules'. |
|
11 Dec 04 - 06:03 PM (#1354295) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA If you've been paying any attention, you would know that our president has pointedly and specifically said that he can think of no errors that he has made. Oh, wait, at one point, he did say he had "made some bad personnel choices". But, admit he was wrong on WMD's? Hasn't happened. |
|
12 Dec 04 - 05:59 PM (#1355002) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous dianavan, I believe you will do anything and say anything that is anti-American in context. You qualify as one of the leading anti-Americans on this board. You do it so will from your ex-patriot viewpoint. Please don't come back. |
|
12 Dec 04 - 07:13 PM (#1355078) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk There is no admission so painful as the admission that one willingly supported a criminal war of aggression by one's own country, after that war has turned into a disaster and is seen for what it really was. Millions of Germans had to face that psychological blow in 1945, and you guys who have so fervently supported Mr Bush in his latest war of aggression are going to have to face it one day too. Although...I have met a few unrepentant old supporters of Hitler who were youngsters in the 40's in Germany and who still believe in the Nazi propaganda line and that Hitler was a great leader, and a "good man"...(although they are rather careful who they talk to openly about it). So maybe you never will face it after all. Denial can be a great comfort to a wounded ego. Specially after a lost war. |
|
12 Dec 04 - 08:03 PM (#1355125) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Thanks fir yer support, Dougie, but I ain't interested in being president unless you gonna be my V.P... Heck, we'll set up a big ol' rubber wrestlin' pad in the Oval Office and start each day with a few drop kicks and judo chops... And, brucie, I ain't too sure what shot yer defending me from by W-Gang but don't worry none... When yer right... yer right... and I, along with most here are right... History will prove it... Bobert |
|
12 Dec 04 - 08:27 PM (#1355150) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk I just got a good chuckle out of imagining you and Doug R running on the same ticket, Bobert. It would be interesting. Together you would represent a coalition that would have solid support in almost every constituency in America. You would be sure to win! Phone up the Democrats and Republicans right now, accept the best offer, and start planning for 2008! :-) |
|
12 Dec 04 - 09:11 PM (#1355179) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: dianavan Martin - I will come back to America when it is once again the land of the free and the home of the brave. |
|
12 Dec 04 - 09:18 PM (#1355183) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk Hear! Hear! I left in '69 with much the same sentiments, but I had no plans to go back to the USA regardless, because I was born Canadian and I like it here. |
|
13 Dec 04 - 12:08 PM (#1355692) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Wolfgang Brucie, my last post was directed at TIA who had made a quite one-sided post in my opinion. I just wanted to show him (her?) that errors of prediction have also been made on the other side here. Many are on record here with that wrong prediction (planting of evidence) and I had to cite one of those in order to make more than just a claim without foundation. I could cite others as well. However to call Bobert the Jeane Dixon of Mudcat on that prediction alone was well over the top. Everybody is wrong now and then. What makes Bobert special among people who have erred is that he is on the record with conflicting predictions about the same thing. That was one of the famous Dixon tricks and that in addition to a reluctance to admit an error was how that name first came into my mind in connection with Bobert. Dianavan, your missing my point completely. My point is that this particular prediction was wrong and not that it could have been right. Wolfgang |
|
13 Dec 04 - 12:47 PM (#1355731) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous dianavan, it is the land of the free and the home of the brave. We are better off with one less whiner. |
|
27 Dec 04 - 05:23 PM (#1365359) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST DougR. I like a lot of your posts. But when you suggest that only the majority can be right you are flying in the face of sweet reason. The number of people supporting an action (of war for instance) does not make the action right or wrong. Remember the vast majority of the German people voted Hitlet into power in 1932. Com Seangan |
|
27 Dec 04 - 06:09 PM (#1365405) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Dianavan: your Dec. 11 post: when dealing with terrorists, pray tell, what ARE the rules? DougR |
|
27 Dec 04 - 07:14 PM (#1365470) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos 'llbe honest with you Frank. The fundamentalist Moslems are our biggest threat. Everyone knows it's us or them.... Frank, your 1960s paranoia is showing. better watch out in that rear view mirror. Must be hard living on the fringe of society for all of these years, isn't it? Thus, Martin Gibson. Let me point out that there is no paranoia deeper than the one attributed by the believer to "everybody" and which speaks from the center of a life-or-death struggle in a time when one is not occurring. This is the language of psychosis in play. A |
|
27 Dec 04 - 07:51 PM (#1365501) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: akenaton Amos...Insinuating that Martin is mad does nothing to solve the problem. I tend to agree with him that it probably will come down to "them or us" in the final analysis. As usual right and wrong will be convieniantly pushed to one side in our fight to make sure of the survival not of our people ,but of our system of government. The "democratic" left, hypocritical as ever will fall in behind people like Bush whom they profess to hate, just to ensure they dont lose any "goodies. Its about time the liberals realised that nothing but war, poverty,and a deeply divided society lies ahead under Capitalism and join the real left in protest and direct action...Ake G8 Summit Gleneagles Hotel Perthshire Scotland....July 2005 |
|
27 Dec 04 - 09:13 PM (#1365551) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos I suppose it would be a wonderful idea to define your them and your thus before you decide we are all enmeshed in a lethal battle, now wouldn't it? Martians? How about defining all of Earth as "us" and the evils of rampant mass and acceleration as "them"? That'd give you something worth conquering. Are you really going to suggest to a rational audience (assuming you have one) that any Muslim is part of a "them" dedicated to the wiping out of "us" meaning any Christian? Or is it a world division to the death between brown and white skins you imagine is at work here? Pray tell what are the details of this nightmare in which you find yourself swept up side by side with Martin Gibson, the embodiment of rational analysis? Perhaps you would like to argue that it is "us or them" because letting Arabs survive in peace would, of course, impede the End Times and prevent the fulfillment of God's Plan for the sweeping up of all remaining shards of shattered humanity? Terrible pity, that. Seriously exactly what is the Terrible Battle you see in your mind that moves you to consider you are locked in an "us-or-them" annihilation struggle? I'm all for winning the battle of Good versus Evil, fellas, but I think we have to have our eyes open first. A |
|
27 Dec 04 - 11:26 PM (#1365592) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Wolfgang - perhaps my post is one-sided, but it's a side not often stated outright in the USA. Our (USA's) leaders and their supporters have been relentlessly and unwaveringly wrong on Iraq, and I, for one, have had the shits of being understanding, tolerant, and "two-sided". I am always willing to admit it, and apologize, and make good, when I am wrong. My "leaders" and their supporters are content to change their stories, and twist, and wiggle to avoid any hint of having been wrong. Fuck 'em. They were wrong. Go ahead, point out a case where someone else (even on my side) was wrong about something. My leaders were still wrong. Does your ability to find wrong on the other (my) side make them any less wrong? Didn't think so. BTW, I have often admired your critical thinking skills on other threads, so this is not in any way a personal slam. I'm fed up. And I shall remain gender ambiguous. TIA |
|
27 Dec 04 - 11:56 PM (#1365609) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Hear, hear, TIA... Yer right. Bush & Co. can't stick to one story for longer than 30 days. Even today you have Cheney still preachin' the WMD story while Bush is pitchin' the "let's have a democratic Iraq" story... They are both so far from the truth that they couldn't drive to the truth in a Farriri in a year.... even on a straight road... As fir W-Gang's observations on my record of predicting stuff? The important stuff, I'm 100%. Like Iraq becoming a quagmire with the US forces having to fight an urban war against an enemy that looks just likw the good guys... Like the destabilization of the entire region... Yeah those are the biggies... The actual dates of stuff are merely sideshows. So what if Osoma wasn't captured on Oct. 7th. Big whop... Like who cares? Ain't keeping me awake at night.... The predictions that count are tight on line... Don't think so? Go back and read what I (and others) predicted would happen if the US invaded Iraq... End of story. Bobert |
|
28 Dec 04 - 10:09 AM (#1365907) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Larry K As usual, a whole lot of BS and not a lot of frank talk. I still have not heard one single plan on how to succeed. All I hear is how to fail. The party of doom and gloom. OK- for those of you who want to immediately pull out of Iraq (I would much rather have you pull out of other things and protect the gene pool) what then? Leave it to the UN? The country that has already bailed out of Iraq and any other country when the bullets start flying. What then? Maybe you don't care. Let there be civil war and have millions die like in Cambodia and Rowanda. Compassionate liberalism at work. I wouldn't really care either except that the terrorists will take control and that threatens the USA. I say give the north to the Kurds. I know that on a Mudcat Forum we are not allowed to discuss the Kurds. After all, it is far safer to walk the streets in Northern Iraq than it is to walk the streets of NYC, Detroit, London, or Toronto. The Kurds are very pro USA which is why the media has barred anyone from talking about them. The Sunni's are going to boycott the elections. Good. They don't deserve any power. If they rebell, kill them all. Give the other half of the country to the Shiites in the south where there is also relative peace. If Turkey threatens to invate the Kurds (as most analysts say they will) tell Turkey that we will support the Kurds, and give the Kurds control of Turkey if they invade. I would then take all the money stolen in the UN food for oil program and use it to pay of Iraq debts. This would allow them to fund a security force. I would also double the price of oil to France, Germany, Russia, and China. If they don't like it they could do without it. I would also charge Saudi Arabia and Quatar a fee for protection from terrorists of 1 million per day. If they do not pay, we deduct if from our oil purchases now. If they stop shipments, we empound their oil barges. This would cause the Saudi government to collapse in weeks. I am sure you disagree with most of this. So come up with your own solutions. PS: A solution is not that we pull out of Iraq. That is just the starting point. |
|
28 Dec 04 - 10:41 AM (#1365919) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Amos, you have the language of psychotics at play to paraphrase your nonsensical post. A lot of empty, empty words by you who will undoubtly be the first to bend over and kiss his ass goodbye. I like Larry K, common sense solution. Them or Us, Amos. I'm sure that you will come running over to "US" quickly when you realize that all of your rhetoric has proved nothing leaving your little chicken-shit footprints in the snow. |
|
28 Dec 04 - 03:41 PM (#1366129) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA LarryK just kicked the living crap out of that straw man. Who exactly suggested that we pull out with no plan and leave a Cambodia/Rwanda massacre? Who says we're not allowed to talk about the Kurds? Who says many of us wouldn't be delighted about a change of government in Saudi Arabia? Plans for how to succeed? Yeah we can talk about those. Plans for how to fail? Well, they've already been implemented haven't they? First step in solving a problem is admitting that there is one. I don't hear our government admitting any mistakes, so what's there to fix? Party of doom and gloom, eh? So you're pretty sunny about the situation and prospects in Iraq then? Sheesh. Seems to me that a frank discussion of Iraq needs to begin with "wow, we really f_ed this up, now how are we gonna fix it....?" |
|
28 Dec 04 - 04:50 PM (#1366182) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR TIA: the only thing you left out of the last post is, "in my opinion." Not everyone shares yours. Larry K: Sounds like a good plan to me! DougR |
|
28 Dec 04 - 05:40 PM (#1366228) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Well, TIA, it would seem that the Bushites are incapable of admitting that they have made even a single mistake and theis is where the problem lies... Einstein said that a problem cannot be solved with the same consciouness that created it. I agree with him. It really wouldn't hurt for Bush and his neocon buddies ti say "Hey, we mightta messed up" and in doing provide an olive branch to the 56,000,000 Americans who want him out and the countless millions of folks in other coubntfries who see his administration as "My way or the highway"... Now Larry K accuses us of wnating to turn Iraq into Cambodia or Rowanda. Horrors!!! Then when it come to the Sinni's he suggests, no make that states "kill them all" if they rebell. Hey, rebell can take many forms, Larry K. Would you like the 56,000,000 who didn't vot for Bush to be killed? No, you want a solution? 1. First admit very emphatically that the initial reasons for invading Iraq, for variuos reasons, turned out to be wrong. When you still have over 50% of the American people belieiving one of the *Big Three* (WMD's, Mushroom clouds, Link to Al Qeuda) then your are not doing a very good job is trying to find a starting point. 2. Withdraw Condi Rice's nomination to the State Department and offer the job to Jimmy Carter. 3. Create a Department of Peace and appoint Dennis Kucinich as its first secretary. 4. Fire: Donald Rumsdeld and Paul Wolfowitz (Richard Perle has allready left since his inside ball games are being investigated). 5. Stop all payments and supplies of military hardware to Isreal and let it be known that the US is going to be proactive (as Clinton did) in putting a real effort into brokering a peacefull settlement between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. 6. Impliment the Saudi Proposal (Mitchell Plan) for a Middle East Summit. 7. Show the world that you are on the side of people (as opposed to the corporations and the World Bank) by unilaterially sending forces into Sudan. There, Larry K. These are all positive first steps towards getting you guy's butt out of the fire... And guess what? If it weren't for a few redneck and racist southern Christian Right leaders, he could do all of these things and be as successful as one can expect considering the totally screwed up mess he has created. All, I can say is don't blame us if he follows down the path he seem to have marked out and if Iraq is looking more and more like Vietnam in a year or two, or three, or 10... Peace Bobert |
|
28 Dec 04 - 06:43 PM (#1366305) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Ok, let's pull out of Iraq. Let's see if there's anything left at all in 1-2 years, no sweat off my back. Let's let the insurgents do what they want. Iraq's only glimmer of hope is the U.S. guidance of democracy. |
|
28 Dec 04 - 07:36 PM (#1366351) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Ahhhh, not to seem to baffled here, Martin, ol' pal, but why all of a sudden this *interest* in democracy? What happened to the first half a dozen *reasons* fir invading Iraq? Jus' curious... Like I don't remember back in the Oct 11th speech in Cincinitti when Bush laid out to the American people why he thought we needed to invade Iraq any mention of democracy??? Now democracy is the craze!!! But lets send in as many lawyers as it takes to be sure that the right guys win... What was that sound??? Hmmmmm??? Nevermind. Tom Jefferson just puked up his supper... Bobert |
|
28 Dec 04 - 07:49 PM (#1366358) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos Ach, Martin, you're bent on destruction and death and that's where you're going, no matter who says what. Maybe you have a definition for your stupid, myopic and half-crazed dichotomy? I think it is pretty presumptuous of you to decide on a category for half the species, maybe even arrogant, but that's never stopped you before, has it? So who is this "them" against which you are in pitched battle, then,. Martin? You finding these guys in your closet at night and under your bed? Enlighten me as to how the world is divided, Mister Science, and we will all be the wiser for it, if you can stop drooling long enough to get your keyboard to work. A |
|
28 Dec 04 - 07:58 PM (#1366367) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Now, now, Amos.... "...drooling long enough to get your keyboard to work..." Tad on the melodramtic side, I'd say... Other than that, a decnt 9.5 in my book. Bobert |
|
28 Dec 04 - 08:11 PM (#1366373) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Amos You got the world completely figured out by spending 95% of your waking time on your computer and the other 5% taking a shit. You tell me what's the answer. Certainly not the 50 cent words that you use to impress yourself with. You are certainly not the answer and you have no answer. No one as pathetic as you could possibly have it. No one as stupid as you don't pretend to be has it. You, are the problem, Amos. What's that sound? Your sphinter contracting, perhaps? Or did someone pull your finger? And by the way, I like my response just fine. I rate it a total 10 our of 10. |
|
28 Dec 04 - 08:26 PM (#1366387) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Now there you go, Martin... Reminds me of a story of the white supremist writer who is invited to speak at a black college. After the customary introduction the writer steps to the microphone and calmly says "Niggers are descendents of apes!" and then steps back as the entire assembly jumps up and down and gestures and screams and is, well, quite disorderly. Tis reaction of jumping up and own and yelling and gesturing last several minutes until the writer steps to the microphone and calmly speaks these words before leaving the stage: "I rest my case..." This heard this story from a black civil rights minister in the 60's and have never forgotten it. Well, it kinda reminds me of the the way both you, Amos, and you, Martin, respond (react) to one another.... Yeah, I'm sure both of you could call me a pompous jerk or rat-fink 'er whatever but something gets lost in the translations when you two go at it... I mean no pompous jerkness here but I think you both could learn from the *grace* that DougR and I have found in our differences... Peace to you both Bobert |
|
28 Dec 04 - 08:31 PM (#1366394) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous The thing is Bobert is that I am laughing my ass off at this pseudo intellectual moron and so much enjoy disrutpting him because he takes what he says so seriously and offends so easily. You and DougR may have your grace and that's fine with me, but excuse me, I'm from Chicago. My agenda is to have some fun. |
|
28 Dec 04 - 08:36 PM (#1366399) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Wolfgang TIA, my issue with you never was how wrong many of the war supporters (in general and here) have been in their predictions about the war. My one and only point was that people from the other camp have erred too (in general and in posts in Mudcat here). Nothing else. Bobert, you being wrong in predicting dates wouldn't elicit a repeated comment from me. I would mostly likely be wrong too in predicting a date for anything. What did make me laugh and comment later as you predicting different dates for the same event and your (like a true politician) way of accompanying your change of prediction with the words 'stick to'. Step Two calls for an armored and infantry assault on the Iraqi army which has allready told the world that it will retreat into the major population centers. Now we're going to see a street fight, building to building, Iraqi bi Iraqi. (Bobert predicting the course of the war) Now show us how Dixon would treat that: Point to Falluja and don't mention that the prediction once was made for the Iraqi army. Wolfgang |
|
28 Dec 04 - 08:59 PM (#1366416) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos Martin: Abuse is your specialty, always has been, and the one thing you do not care to notice is how anti-social you are. This leads you directly into thundering generalizations about Us and Them, but I notice you haven't bothered to make a simple declarative sentence about who you think this Terrible Enemy is. What you have time for is obsessively making nothing out of other people. Only you know the reason behind this, but I know this much -- it isn't pretty. As for plans, I could come up with several. Relocating the Cabinet to Fallujah seems like a good place to start. You could volunteer to be the lead guy and do the advance work. I for one would not miss your endless constant degradation of others, denigrating and abusing at every turn like some cheap back-water guttersnipe. Your respect towards others must be awful low, and your real respect for yourself can't be much better if all you can do is go around making derogatory remarks; I know you have a pocketful of assertions to counter this about how happy you really are, but that's like Bush asserting how kind he is while he pulls the wings off flies -- by and by everyone sees through the bull. You're stinking up a decent community with your constant abrasion. It isn't amusing, it isn't insightful, it isn't contributing -- it is just sheer crapola, and you know it. Ship out and grow up, Martin. A |
|
28 Dec 04 - 09:03 PM (#1366421) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Well, W-Gang, at least upon changing my dates I explained that I had predicted another date and was changing it because of calendar issues. Yeah I picked a Saturday and everyone knows thatSaturday isn't aoggd day to either invade a country or capture Osoma... It isn't like I poicked both dates and stuck by both of them... In picking the 6th of 7th, whatever it was, I fully expalined me errors in reasoning... Now as fir you, Martin. What makes you think you are anydifferent than the black college kids who acted out? Maybe Amos is getting his jollies as you fire back post after post that, in all honestly, have no content other than name calling.... Jus' a thought? Bobert |
|
28 Dec 04 - 09:18 PM (#1366435) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: beardedbruce Amos, Try looking in the mirror, on occasion. "Abuse is your specialty, always has been, and the one thing you do not care to notice is how anti-social you are. This leads you directly into thundering generalizations about Us and Them," "I for one would not miss your endless constant degradation of others, denigrating and abusing at every turn like some cheap back-water guttersnipe. Your respect towards others must be awful low, and your real respect for yourself can't be much better if all you can do is go around making derogatory remarks; " "You're stinking up a decent community with your constant abrasion. It isn't amusing, it isn't insightful, it isn't contributing -- it is just sheer crapola, and you know it." If you want to have this thread to show off your close-mined, bigoted views, that's ok. But you were one of those complaining about ad-hominim arguements- so try not to use them so much, unless you like being such an obvious shit-head. |
|
28 Dec 04 - 10:05 PM (#1366452) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos Well, thanks, Bruce for quoting me accurately! I am impressed. Tell ya what it is, BB -- these ponderous generalizations in defense of sociopathic wars just get under my skin. I know perfectly well that there is a decent human being lurking around behind Martin's handle. And he knows I know it. But he chooses to heap abuse on people, not just me but almost everyone he speaks to or about, in terms that a sixth-grader would be ashamed of, and I have had enough of this puerile attitude. If that makes me a shit-head in your book, then just go over in Martin's corner and join him, but no whispering, now. And you'll get a note for your Moms, too. You can look at the pictures in "Family of Man" until recess. OK. That said, what is it in my views that you think of as "bigoted"? My bias against war-mongering? Guilty as charged. Prejudicial judgment against self-serving misrepresentation in public office? Ditto. My instinctive dislike against wholesale human slaughter, unnecessary murder, attacking others with blunt instruments? Guilty to all. Do you think the world is divided into "us" versus "them", Bruce? If so, who do you think is "them"? Are you tuning up for the Rapture and looking forward to the miseries of the unbelievers too? Or just doubling your bets up in case? I am done here. You Bush-tonguers can have this thread if you can find something coherent to put in it. At least until I take care of a few real-world concerns and settle down some. A |
|
28 Dec 04 - 10:22 PM (#1366459) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert 9.7, Amos.... Stick it to 'um where it hurts... If they wanta continue thier juvinle and childish responses then they become the black students in the story I related... Rise above it... and them... Sure, they love nuthin' more than dragging you into their world... Their world is genocide... Hold your ground... No name callin'... Okay? Bobert |
|
29 Dec 04 - 11:55 AM (#1366778) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Amos, nice to see I'm not the only one here who thinks that you are a pompous turd with ear flaps. Your one real world concern is making sure you have enough toilet paper for all the crap coming out of you. BTW, you can get top toilet paper brands for less at Wal-Mart, Amos. |
|
29 Dec 04 - 01:10 PM (#1366832) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Diogenes Speaking of turds, Martin Gibson is like a dog turd laying on the sidewalk. It's pretty disgusting, there's not much you can do about stopping them from appearing here and there, and it really isn't worth even thinking about. Above all, don't try to step on it or you will get dog crap all over your shoes. Eventually the flies will carry it off. |
|
29 Dec 04 - 02:21 PM (#1366885) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous but you love the taste of dog shit, diogenes or dog genes or what ever your dumb name is. it's all over your teeth. I'm sure the flies you mention live in that dump of a home of yours. |
|
29 Dec 04 - 06:42 PM (#1367133) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Diogenes Same intellectual content, too. |
|
29 Dec 04 - 07:25 PM (#1367167) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Ahhhh, Martin ol' pal, I was just pointing out that Amos does better when he keeps his eye on the story and not the name callin' as opposed to you who finds the name callin' the thrill of the game... Hey, no judgement here. Different strokes for different folks and folks oughtta do what they do best... Name callin' just ain't one of Amos's strong suits but, hey, if you want the story?....... Now that's where he gets going real well... Bobert |
|
29 Dec 04 - 11:17 PM (#1367317) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous His best story is the one he will tell you about how he tried to shave his hemmoroids and had to hit them with a sceptic pencil. Otherwise, his stories are boring and non-informative. Blah, even. |
|
29 Dec 04 - 11:31 PM (#1367330) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Greg F. Sceptic pencil. A real MENSA candidate, this boy. |
|
30 Dec 04 - 10:29 AM (#1367613) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Greg F. F as in fuckface. |
|
31 Dec 04 - 01:12 AM (#1367806) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos Martin: Upgrade, lad, upgrade. You need a different public personality. The current one is as appealing as a little Cathy Vomit doll. A |
|
31 Dec 04 - 10:16 AM (#1368089) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Greg F. Relax, Amos, I should care what chazzerei this petseleh comes out with? And Martin: Tu mir a toiveh- gai tren zich. |
|
31 Dec 04 - 12:03 PM (#1368208) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Kish mein der tuchas. |
|
31 Dec 04 - 05:50 PM (#1368474) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank The occupation in Iraq is not working. Day by day, the situation becomes more and more like Vietnam. Walter Reed Hospital is receiving more injured soldiers daily. Many soldiers are returning with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and will attempt to take their role unsuccessfully in society. As it stands, many soldiers are defecting and are claiming conscientious objection status. The attacks on American troops are escalating. The "civil war" is in progress even though the troops try to keep the lid on in vain. It is important to talk about this. Our democracy is being compromised by the civil rights of citizens being eroded. The Patriot Act was the first step. The new one promises to be more invasive. Repression abroad can never be won at the expense of repression at home. We need to return to a policy of sanity and diplomatic negotiations with other countries and accept that the role of the UN is the only solution left to regain a moral high ground with the rest of the world community. Frank Frank |
|
31 Dec 04 - 06:05 PM (#1368486) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Yeah, Frank... The number of seriously wounded coming home is a story that the Bush folks aren't going to let the media tell... They're also not telling about the crappy treatment these folks are getting ot the number of honeless vets... Yeah, support the troops as long as they are fighting but, fir gosh sakes, don't get hurt 'cause if ya do you ain't gonna get jack... Yer not even going to have yer story told... For all you Support-the-Troop Catters, rememeber this post 'cause Jesus wasn't whistling Dixie when he said "There's nothing secret that won't one day be public knowledge"... Bobert |
|
31 Dec 04 - 07:25 PM (#1368522) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR I'm interested Frank. What lack of civil liberties have you personally endured as a result of the Patriot Act? DougR |
|
31 Dec 04 - 07:47 PM (#1368533) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,heric "Repression abroad can never be won at the expense of repression at home." That is one spectacularly constructed sentence. I am sure it is going to keep creeping into my head. |
|
01 Jan 05 - 06:56 PM (#1369019) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Greg F. What lack of civil liberties have you personally endured... Translation: 1. If it ain't happenin' to me personally, then it ain't happenin'. 2. I'm all right, Jack. Idiot. |
|
01 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM (#1369030) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous You signed your name as an Idiot, Greg F. Very fitting. Obviously Frank has personally talked to all of the returning servicemen and as usual makes the most unsubstantiated generalizations found on this forum. |
|
01 Jan 05 - 07:57 PM (#1369055) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Big Al Whittle turd with ear flaps....did you come up with that yourself, or is it a well known saying? sorry Amos! I really like that one. Be honest, none of us have got the slightest clue EXACTLY what this war is all about and why it suddenly seemed a good idea to get Saddam after all these years of him being a real turd with ear flaps. You either trust Bush, or you don't. He's unlikely to confide any more to us than he has done already. Some of you trust him, and some don't. anyway we're at war - we've just got to hope that our side is basically the honourable one. There are bound to be terrible things happen, that's what war is like. I can't see that we're comparable to Hitler. Just the general tenor of our society with its egalitarian features. I don't think you can expect to compare us to Hitler without people being hurt and resentful. Many of our families fought against Hitler, or suffered persecution from him. Or in England, he bombed us. From where I live (I am told) you see the city of Derby burning every night - 15 miles away. Is Chicago full of people calling each other turds with ear flaps? sound like a fun place! |
|
01 Jan 05 - 08:35 PM (#1369090) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert 1300 to 100,000+ (mostly civilian women and children), welittle? Ahhhh, I think the Hitler comparasion is accurate... You do the math... Bobert |
|
02 Jan 05 - 04:44 AM (#1369218) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Big Al Whittle that's a fair old spread just over a thousand to over one hundred thousand. not that its any comfort to the friends and relatives of the 1300 people, but you were never going to unseat Saddam Hussein any other way. Hitler killed 20 million people in the Russian campaign alone. And you still have the democratic means to unseat your president and a free press. Something the German people did not have under Hitler. the story in England was that the good citizens of Chicago and Boston were joyfully still singing the rebel songs and sticking dollars in the collecting tin when the IRA had done in a far bigger proportion of the Irish population. Maybe you're right though. i failed maths. |
|
02 Jan 05 - 06:36 PM (#1369644) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank The classical definition of fascism is that the government is actually run by corporations that determine public policy. The government is literally bought by an oligarchy of business people headed by a dictatorial regime. Dissent is ridiculed, discouraged at the least and destroyed at the max. It also is indicative of a one-party system. Under this regime, people are persecuted for having contrary beliefs to the "dicatator" and this takes a form of abuse. Dialogue about differing opinions is no longer an option. Jingoism, patriotic posturing, war-mongering, and violent conversation and deeds are also symptomatic of this illness. Is this beginning to look familiar to anyone? Frank |
|
02 Jan 05 - 06:42 PM (#1369651) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Man, you are such a far, far lefty Frank that it's extremely laughable. It's amazing how you hate America. Just remember, "the revolution will not be televised." |
|
02 Jan 05 - 06:57 PM (#1369663) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: dianavan "Many soldiers are returning with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and will attempt to take their role unsuccessfully in society." That is a fact that cannot be denied. Doug R. - What are you doing, on a personal level, to help these soldiers resume a productive life at home? |
|
02 Jan 05 - 07:02 PM (#1369673) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos Martin: Accusing someone of hating America because they hold out for tolerance of diversity, open expression of differing viewpoints, and freedom to disagree with a heavy-handed government? These things are what MADE America. Did you becopme a robot on purpose? Or did somebody slip you a schtupid pill? Frank is right on the oney about what defines the mechanisms of text-book fascism, and all you can do is sneer and denigrate? Come on. A |
|
02 Jan 05 - 07:39 PM (#1369693) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Big Al Whittle of course they return with stress disorders. It is very stressful to be shot at and bombed. My father had nightmares about Spandau machine guns all the rest of his life after ww2 That is the measure of the soldier's devotion to your country. If you go to war, you're not going to come back the same. look! YOU are at war. Admittedly not the sort of war America is used to. this isn't something happening the other side of the world, and the unlucky ones don't come home - this is more like what happened in Europe where there are bombers overhead, terrorists sticking a bombs in MacDonalds full of kids. The IRA used to have a good phrase explaining the situation when they stuck bombs in pubs , and at military band concerts in the park with old ladies watching, and chucked them at the horse guards trotting outside Buckingham palace. they said you are ALL legitimate targets. And that is your situation since 9/11. you are the legitimate targets. You hate Bush. Fair enough. But whoever was in the White House was going to have to react vigorously and show the world at large that there are consequences for doing what they did. Those kids with their arms and legs blown off......not a really nice job, politics is it? But realistically I don't think you would have seen much difference whoever was president at this time. |
|
02 Jan 05 - 08:33 PM (#1369725) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Good point, Frank... Let's not forget that Hitler buddied up to the "industrialists" in his rise to power... Then another elememnt of facism is super patriotism... Well, these days ta better have one of them "support the troops" ribbons on the back of yer car... No really, I've talked about this in other threads but there are lots of similarities between Germany in the late 30's and the US of today... Too bad that most Bushites are too busy patting themselves on the back for putting down the intellectuals to realize just what a ttrap they are helping to build that can one day be used on them.. But sure is nice being in the winner's circle, ain't it... Screw the costs... Ol' Tom Jefferson has just puked yet again... Bobert Oh, and BTW, fir you Bushites who may not have read Russ Bellant's "Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party" I'd suggest staying the heck away from it unless you have the ability to rethink positions... which is very much questionable... |
|
03 Jan 05 - 12:02 AM (#1369803) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Uh, nothing, Dianavan. Are you? Frank: Are you evading my question, or perhaps you didn't understand it? I'll try again. What personal liberties have you lost, Frank, as a result of the Patriot act? Greg F., if you have lost some or even one, perhaps you would also share your experience with us? DougR |
|
03 Jan 05 - 10:41 AM (#1370013) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous They can't. dead air from these whiners, DougR. Don't you know that Frank has personally interviewed thousands of Americans who have lost liberties from the Patriot Act? |
|
03 Jan 05 - 01:06 PM (#1370145) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Nope, Martin, I wasn't aware of that. That certainly would lend credibility to his post, though, were he to point that out. Of course then I would want to know, "what kind of liberties?" DougR |
|
03 Jan 05 - 02:13 PM (#1370196) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous The key word of course is crediblity, or as usual, lack of the usual unsubstantiated generalizations. |
|
03 Jan 05 - 02:14 PM (#1370200) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: akenaton You "good old boys" are sure giving The "democrats" some stick. Must be pay back time for their crazy stance before the election...Ake |
|
03 Jan 05 - 02:45 PM (#1370223) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Why, Ake? were they saying anything at that time? |
|
03 Jan 05 - 04:00 PM (#1370283) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: akenaton Well ...They were sure "Gen Custer" Kerry was going to swat these pesky redskins and save the World,but the redskins turned out to be Bushwhackers, the General had no lead in his pencil..and now were all up shit creek...Ake |
|
03 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM (#1370361) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Well, just for starters, the according to those who have been sent out to explain the Patriot Act, an American citizen can be detained, without being charged, shipped to a military base and kept there as long as the War on Terro lasts which Bush said is like, forever... Now, has this happened? We don't friggin know becuase why, Bobert? Glad you asked. Well, evem after federal courts order Bush to do things legally he and his buddies just sandbag and do nothing... We can't even get a list of the folks that are being held??? Now if Clinton had pushed thru something like this every danged conservative over 4 years old would have screamed "Bloody commie" at him. But Bush does it and you so called conservatives, which you aren't jsut applaud. Bunch of followers as far as I can see. Bush ceratinly has shook out the followers from the conservatives, that's fir sure... What I would remind you all is even though you are certain that your crooks have indeed figured out a way to corrupt the system so badly that progressives, no matter their future numbers, will never regain power, it could happen and all this crappy stuff can and mopst likely will be used on you... So enjoy... but rememeber this little warning... Bobert |
|
03 Jan 05 - 05:41 PM (#1370372) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Maybe they are holding some of your relatives, Bobert. you have an Uncle Abdul, perhaps? I say better safe than sorry. |
|
04 Jan 05 - 12:03 PM (#1370974) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank Personal liberty in a democracy is a right to speak your mind without reprisals by others who violently disagree and have their own agenda. It is possible to be assaulted today by those who are crazy in their hatred of Liberals. This is how the Patriot Act works. It incites an intolerance for dialogue and assumes that if you disagree with the present Administration, you are an enemy. What it manages to do is discourage free speech and intrudes on civil rights. There are instances in which private citizens are intimidated by some law enforcement people as well as those who take the law into their own hands guided by a self-righteous narrow-minded and bigotted agenda. This kind of intrusion of civil liberties by demonizing dissent is well-documented and we all know someone who has suffered at the hands of this whether some of us want to deny it or not. Frank |
|
04 Jan 05 - 12:09 PM (#1370980) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous The usual generalities. Please list 3-5 documented "instances." Do you have a certain affection for the word "heresay?" |
|
04 Jan 05 - 12:10 PM (#1370982) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk That does it, Martin! You have insulted my uncle Abdul. I am going to come down to Chicago and hunt you down remorselessly for that. You will suffer the tortures of the damned before I finally wring the last vestiges of life out of your devastated form and cast your miserable bodily remains to the sewer rats! :-) It's nice that Doug R is not totally alone here these days. He used to have a rough time with all us "liberals". I started feeling kinda sorry for him after awhile. |
|
04 Jan 05 - 12:29 PM (#1371007) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous There's also LarryK. there's also probably shitloads more out there (yep, folksingers who are flaming liberals) who just don't want to waste their time here for one reason or another. Your Uncle Abdul needs his dirty nightshirt washed! |
|
04 Jan 05 - 01:30 PM (#1371065) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk Oooo! Just keep it up, Martin. Retribution is winging your way on the swift and terrible wings of justice! And don't go dissing my cousin Floyd either. |
|
04 Jan 05 - 02:22 PM (#1371174) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Really meant to say who are not flaming liberals. Yikes. |
|
04 Jan 05 - 02:56 PM (#1371227) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Mebbe so, Frank, but you still have not addressed my question. As Martin has pointed out, your post consistes of generalities or perhaps things you read on the Internet. Have you, yourself, personally, alone, been singled out to lose your civil liberties as a result of the Patriot Act? If so, tell us about it. DougR |
|
04 Jan 05 - 07:03 PM (#1371489) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk You can be against something in principle, Doug, without having been affected by it directly and personally. Example: Saddam Hussein has done nothing to you or me personally. Nothing whatsoever. Yet a whole lot of people felt that he had to be "taken out", despite the fact that he had done nothing to them personally. Follow me on that? I think you oughta just leave Frank alone and respect his right to his own opinion on the Patriot Act. If he's against it in principle, it's got nothing to do with whether it has yet affected him personally or not. |
|
04 Jan 05 - 07:11 PM (#1371504) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert menawhile back at Iraq, another 47 Iragis and 3 Americans died that wouldn't have died today under Saddam... And the beat goes on... Bobert |
|
05 Jan 05 - 08:46 AM (#1371944) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Won't begin to presume to speak for Frank. But, here's my two cents. I have no evidence that my personal civil liberties have been eroded. However, that is just the point. How would I know if the government has checked on my library book list, or tapped my phone? Patriot allows them to do that (and more) much more easily and with less oversight. For instance, the FBI has reported that they requested records for 300,000 hotel guests in Las Vegas last year. I was in Las Vegas twice. Can you assure me that my civil liberties were not eroded? For another instance, immigration officials report that they have detained 3 to 5 thousand people over the last year - almost exclusively of middle eastern and south asian citizenship. Although none (0, zip, nada) were charged with any crimes, most were deported or encouraged to leave "voluntarily" even if they had proper visas or green cards. "Ah ha!" you say..."but that DID NOT affect you PERSONALLY!" You're right, but please go do a Google on Martin Niemoller. |
|
05 Jan 05 - 08:52 AM (#1371947) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Greg F. To Review: What lack of civil liberties have you personally endured... Translation: 1. If it ain't happenin' to me personally, then it ain't happenin'. 2. I'm all right, Jack. Idiot. |
|
05 Jan 05 - 09:25 AM (#1371977) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA Sorry to post again so soon, but on reflection, I do have a personal example. For several years, I have been working with a Russian scientist (former military) through the ISTC program (www.ISTC.ru)to channel his brilliance into humanitarian, rather than WMD, devices. He used to be able to travel to the US, but can no longer get a visa. The US embassy in Moscow reports that they cannot give him a visa due to some provision of the Patriot Act. Hmmm. By that logic, all those who worked on the Manhattan project should be on a terrorist watch list. Again, not my personal civil liberties. But, personal experience - not aluminum foil hat internet stuff - and troubling to me at least. |
|
05 Jan 05 - 09:30 AM (#1371983) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk Well, yes, the Manhattan Project led directly to what were probably the two most heinous terrorist acts in history, as a matter of fact. Deliberate terrorizing and killing of people in an indiscriminate fashion IS terrorism, regardless of whether it's done by an individual, a group, or a government...and regardless of what excuses are trotted out to justify it. Governments have been committing terrorism as long as they have been fighting wars with one another. They only refer to it AS terrorism when someone else does it to them. |
|
05 Jan 05 - 09:43 AM (#1371998) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: robomatic LH: We've been there before in a different thread. Unless you have your own definition of 'terrorist acts', then ending the war with Japan was a legitimate use of atomic weapons at the time, decided after a lot of thought by a lot of people. If you want to go head to head on this, let's take it to a different thread or revive the one just past. Stick to the subject. As for 'people who wouldn't have died under Saddam' Bob, how can you possibly say? Sounds a lot like the Israelites who really missed the Pharaoh to me. Did Saddam 'make the trains run on time?" If your objections to the current state of affairs are so great that you seek reinstituting the rule of a killer dictator, why not start a campaign to release the son-of-a-bitch? That could have its own thread, too. |
|
06 Jan 05 - 01:00 AM (#1372776) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk We'll never agree on the use of the A-bombs, robomatic. I'm okay with that. Just accept that we don't agree about it. I was not defending Saddam, I was merely pointing out to Doug that one does not have to be personally affected by a situation in order to oppose it on principle. That's all. To construe my comments as a defence of Saddam would be to misunderstand my point entirely. I regard most acts of war as acts of terrorism, except these few: Any direct defence of one's own homeground against a foreign invader (by land) or attacker (by sea or air) is a legitimate action, in my opinion, and it is not terrorism. Therefore, I am in support of the English when they fought against the German blitz and when they protected their shipping at sea and fought the German Navy, for example. I am in support of the English, French, and Americans invading France and other occupied nations to throw out the German occupiers. I am not in support of the indiscriminate terror bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, many other German cities, and many Japanese cities. Those bombings were terrorist strikes, as were the German bombings of British metropolitan areas, and various other civilian centres in Europe, and as were the Japanese atrocities committed in China, for example. I am not in favour of continuing wars to the point of totally occupying, smashing, and humiliating another nation and forcing it into unconditional surrender. Such actions are never necessary in order to "end a war", and they are the result of an arrogant and merciless mentality, for whom mere victory is not enough. Such people are as bad as the people they fight against, and they do not deserve victory. Such victories should be cause for shame, not pride. I regard Stalin's pogroms on his own people as terrorism. He killed millions in the Ukraine. I regard Stalin's defence of Russia against the Axis invaders as legitimate defence. I regard Saddam's attacks on Iran and Kuwait as terrorism. I regard Iran's defence against the Iraqi invasion as legitimate. I regard the English incursions into France in the 13 and 1400's as terrorism. I regard Joan of Arc's campaigns against the English invaders as legitimate defence. I regard the recent USA/British invasion of Iraq as terrorism. I regard military action on the part of Iraqis to get them out as legitimate defence...when it targets military personnel or political personnel...but not when it targets innocent civilians. Any nation has the legitimate right to fight an invader or an occupying power and to recover its own sovereignty. The USA and Britain are presently committed to a terrorist occupation of Iraq, with no actual justification whatsoever, in my opinion. That they are stimulating terrorist reprisals by Iraqis in response to that is not only not surprising, it's inevitable. They will continue to experience such reprisals until they leave. 25 million Iraqis will outlast 150,000 Americans. I guarantee it. Vietnam outlasted 500,000 Americans. |
|
06 Jan 05 - 12:50 PM (#1372867) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: robomatic LH, I appreciate your detailed response, especially because I suspect you have had to repeat yourself on more than one occassion in making your position clear. I think you have made it clear enough, but in doing so you employ an objectivity which is clear only at a distance and only in hindsight, thus (and I do not mean this about you personally) imbuing the printed after-the-fact judgement with a gloss of righteousness and master of the facts such as graced Fortinbras when he entered the gory scene at the end of the last act of Hamlet. You are trying to impose legitimacy on carnage. I don't know if that is possible in a meaningful way (i.e. that you will ever get anyone but yourself to agree with your definitions. The neo-Nazis maintain that Hitler was fighting a defensive war for his race. Japan argued that they were kicking the colonists out of Asia). As for wanting Saddam back, I wasn't referring to your post, but to Bobert's. As to the rest of your post, time will tell. But for the record, sometime I'd like to buy you a pint. |
|
06 Jan 05 - 01:40 PM (#1372932) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk I appreciate that, robomatic. :-) I hope we get to do that someday, and you can buy me a glass of white wine instead, I guess. I'm not much of a beer drinker. And, yes, these things are easier to see clearly with hindsight. I would do everything possible to forestall and avoid a war if I were a politician...but if it's unavoidable, then my heart is with the people defending their own home ground, no matter what hat or uniform they are wearing while they do it. Their homes and children are at their backs, and they know it. That's why I cannot, for instance, help feeling a deep sympathy for Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the thin, ragged ranks of grey that fought desperately against repeated Union invasions of their homeground in 1861-65...quite regardless of the slavery issue. Anyway, thanks for the kind thoughts, and I return them, with respect. |
|
06 Jan 05 - 04:10 PM (#1373114) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,Frank I lived through McCarthyism. It was then the doctrine of "Clear and Present Danger" through which innocent people lost their jobs through the oppression of McCarthy, Red Channels, the HUAC and the Tenney Commission. Now we have Bush, Clear Channels, a partisan Republican congress and the theo-fascist hypo-Christians. Plug in the word "terrorist" for "communist" and you can see that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The same thing is happening today with the introduction of the Patriot Act. Any one who dissents from the opinion that US should have pre-emptively invaded Iraq is subject to the same kind of purge that existed in the 50's. It is happening. I won't go into details about how the FBI and Secret Service are targeting people such as at the Art Car Museum in Houston or a freshman at Durham Tech in North Carolina. A program officer at the US Institute of Peace and other examples. You will see more in the next four years. Don't take my word for it. Check with the ACLU. Anyone who thinks ACLu is partial to partisan efforts only need to check with their defence of neo-theocrats who had their rights violated. The ACLU defends everyone regardless of political or religous views. They can be counted on for accurate reporting. Frank |
|
06 Jan 05 - 05:48 PM (#1373208) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Killer dictator, Roboman? Opps... Sorry... I thought you were talking about Bush... Awwww, jus' funnin'... Kinda... One thing I think you and I can agree with is that Saddam might have been a "bad man" but even as bad a man as he was he wasn't wasting Iragi kids and women at the rate that the US and the UK are... The invasion was a stupid decision... If Bush wanted him "offed" then he should have just turned it over to the CIA and had Saddam offed. (But Bobert. Ain't that against some kinda international law?) Yeah probably is but beat the heack out of killing a hundred thousand women, old folks and kids... (But Bobert. The CIA couldn't get close enough to off Saddam.) Bull. Dan Rather got three feet from him. (But Bobert. Iraq is now a free country.) Bull. (But Bobert. Iraq is going to have democracy.) Bull. (But Bobert, Saddam tried to kill George's daddy.) Bull. (Mushroom clouds?) Ditto (Aluminum tubes? Osoma on Saddam's payroll? Oh yeah, WMD!!!???.....................................) Bull, bull and more bull... Bobert |
|
06 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM (#1373231) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Saddam was a dictator who killed 10s of thousands of his own people, bobert. "menawhile back at Iraq, another 47 Iragis and 3 Americans died that wouldn't have died today under Saddam" C'mon bobert. I just don't figure you to have shit for brains. Greg F., you post looks like you signed off as "idiot" Thanks for the confession. |
|
06 Jan 05 - 06:17 PM (#1373243) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Do no evil and you won't have to worry about the Patriot Act. As far as I'm concerned the FBI can look up my records at the library for the past sixty years. There's nothing there that would cause me any problems, and I am a avid reader. They want to check my background? Okay by me. And as to checking with the ACLU, Guest Frank ...surely you jest if you offer that organization as being fair minded. The ACLU would probably ban taking terrorists prisoners if they had their way. Must be careful not to tromp on the civil liberties of terrorists, you know, even if they may have just tried to blow up a school house filled with children. Gimme a break. DougR |
|
06 Jan 05 - 06:46 PM (#1373298) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: robomatic Bobert, Dan RAther got 3 feed from Saddam... Are you saying we should have made him into a suicide bomber? ;-) |
|
06 Jan 05 - 06:50 PM (#1373304) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Doug R has got it right. I say look up anyone you want. If you have nothing to worry about, no big deal. Frank, do you have anything to worry about? Do you wish to protect people who do have something to worry about? |
|
06 Jan 05 - 06:54 PM (#1373307) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk "Do no evil and you won't have to worry about the Gestapo..." No indeed. Enthusiastic supporters of any repressive regime can usually count on being left alone. In fact, there is probably a lucrative job for such types, turning their enemies and neighbours in, as long as the SySStem itself endures. |
|
06 Jan 05 - 07:07 PM (#1373322) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Bobert Nah, Robo-man. What I am suggestoing is that if Dan Rather could get within 3 feet of Saddam, I'm sure a blind CIA operative could have as well... But I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there who wouldn't have minded seeing Dan Rather get blowed up... Now, I ain't no Saddam apologist but would someone with *real facts* (as opposed to them homemade made-up facts) like to discuss the numbers of folks who were killed by Saddam in the year before the US invasion, or two years before, or three, etc??? Then would this same person like to continue the discussion into the number of deaths that were the results of the sanctions??? And perhaps the number of Kurds that died after Bush I rolled them under the bus last time around??? Or where Saddam got the gas he used on "his own people" (well, not really his own people) or why even after this occured, Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq and gave Saddam a bunch of gifts from Bush I and a big pat on the back??? Yeah, any Bushite wanta tackle these sticky questions??? Didn't think so... If it won't fitr on a bumper sticker, the Bushites can't handle the tough questions... And please, no endless copy and paste. Lets hear it in your words. But please provide your sources, thankee... Bobert |
|
06 Jan 05 - 07:16 PM (#1373334) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos Martin, Doug: I think you guys have seriously gotten the ACLU mixed up with someone else. They understand the issues that arise in times of war -- even an undeclared war. DougR, you rassertion that the ACLU would frown on the capture of enemies in war-time is disingenuous and barbarous. The line that is drawn by the Geneva Convention is against the peculiarly cruel and unusual treatments that people have come up with, including extreme methods of torture, to use against their imprisoned enemies. Maybe in your bloodlust for revenge you see nothing wrong with doing to a prisoner the worst things you can imagine, to make him pay, individually, for your whole nation's losses at war. The Geneva Convention, in a moment of relative clarity, was developed to prevent exactly that kind of blinded sadism from making crude animals out of human beings. To defend such practices is to promote humanity's inhumanity and the erosion of civilization. This is waaaay beyond the effort and commitment needed to win the war. Is that where you want to go with your blood-lust and fanatacism? A |
|
07 Jan 05 - 01:50 PM (#1373825) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Amos: Members of Al Quieda and the Taliban are exempt from the Geneva Convention. They represesnt no country, have not themselves, signed on to the Convention and you can be certain that any prisoners they take can look forward to only one thing:the removal of their head. And your rhetoric does not to convince me that the ACLU does anything other than promote the far-left's philosophy. I can see why you support them. I do not. DougR |
|
07 Jan 05 - 02:44 PM (#1373888) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: GUEST,TIA "Do no evil and you won't have to worry about the Patriot Act." - DougR, 2005 "If you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to be afraid of." - Hitler Youth Handbook, 1937 |
|
07 Jan 05 - 05:55 PM (#1374057) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: DougR Page number TIA? DougR |
|
07 Jan 05 - 06:14 PM (#1374075) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Once Famous Maybe Tia has it memorized. It's her favorite read while sitting on the can. |
|
08 Jan 05 - 04:26 PM (#1374696) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: robomatic I'm not sure of any legal underpinnings that require captured terrorists to be treated as formal prisoners of war. There does seem to be some confusion as to whether we're fighting a war or engaging in extravagant international legal 'extraditions with prejudice." On the whole I support the activities of the ACLU so if they want to sniff around this one a little and then explain WHY they come to these conclusions I'll be happy for the input. I am against torture mainly because of what it does to US, and because it is generally counterproductive. I listen to the talking heads proposing examples of where you have to free a captured hostage and you have a bad guy so why not make him uncomfortable. But the reality is that it doesn't happen that way, and people don't behave that way. On the other side, I recently listened to a talking head saying that torture should be given a legal status, and one could obtain a writ of torture after presenting sufficient cause to a 'torture' judge. That sounded not only officious, objectionable, but also time consuming and ineffective - the perfect legal solution, the worst of all worlds. which brings me back to my feeling that torture is bad because of what it does to us. On the other hand, I subscribe to the suggestion that if Usama should ever be captured, he should be handled by the best of surgeons, given a sexual reassignment, then returned to his people. But I don't think that's torture, not by my standards. |
|
08 Jan 05 - 04:36 PM (#1374707) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Amos It does sound like cruel and unusual punishment. There's something about it in the Constitution. Of course, as Bush and his people have demonstrated, it is easy and often convenient to disagree with the Constitution and ignore it successfully. All this chatter about it being sacrosanct or a Great Experiment and not to be trifled with is just a bunch of liberal mumbo-jumbo -- it's just paper after all, right? A |
|
08 Jan 05 - 05:41 PM (#1374753) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: robomatic I don't think of it as punishment at all, Amos, and i think your response is sexist. In fact, I think I'll check with ACLU on that... It's a ..... lifestyle change with prejudice, yeah, that's the ticket! Besides it will improve quality time with his, er,..., her kids. I suspect there is not enough of it at present, and it's all George and Tony's fault. |
|
08 Jan 05 - 06:07 PM (#1374770) Subject: RE: BS: Frank Talk about the US in Iraq From: Little Hawk Chongo says he has a mango plantation to sell you, Doug. |