IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I'm sad that you believe that
However, due to the trick of Fate described above, they belong to a party that thinks wars are a thing of the past, unbecoming civilized people. They will deny that we're at war for as long as they can. If our enemy is very stupid, something will happen that will make the denial impossible. If they are smart, they will start slowly wining the war we are not fighting.

...

And the Democrat crew that is now coming to the scene will have amply demonstrated that their approach (denial and tribute and retreat) does not work.
Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal, I'll just present my view, which is completely incompatible with yours.

We were attacked. The people who did it were mostly Saudi, and the non-Saudis who were involved were educated and trained by Saudis. They were mostly based out of Afghanistan, where we had supplied them for years as proxy warriors against the Soviets. Once the Soviets pulled out, we stopped supplying them, and they turned on us. Surprise! It's not like we haven't seen it before, with every other proxy we stopped supplying.

So we went into Afghanistan, and everyone -- or close enough as to make no difference -- both here and worldwide supported us. And those who didn't support us at least understood.

Then we went into Iraq. They had nothing to do with the attacks. We should never have gone in. But we wanted to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." In other words, we don't want any more attacks on U.S. soil, so we'll just piss them off and put targets up somewhere over there. Doesn't really matter where, we'll just pick a spot.

And it worked. Anyone who wants to kill Americans finds it much easier to do in Iraq than it would be in the U.S. Congratulations, homeland secured.

And after criminally inept (thanks for the admission) leadership, people have finally had enough of it. Pointing out that we picked a fight with the wrong people for no damn good reason, and that it's about time we stopped, is in no way the same as tribute. Yes, it's denial; it's denying that there's a goal to this war. Yes, it's retreat; it's pulling back from a war we shouldn't fight.

So what should we do? Let these gegraphically dispersed people take shots at us from hiding and constantly react to them? Yes, that's exactly what we should do. Try to find out what they're planning and stop them, sure. But we can't just pick a spot and announce to the world, "Hey, anybody who wants to kill Americans, do it there instead." It's called being civilized.
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New You confirm all that I say
You don't think we are at war (or, if we are, we ought to be at war with Saidi Arabia?). You intend to sit there and be shot at. Indeed, that's what I was saying.

You do realize that our enemies intend to keep on shooting? Using better and better weapons as the time goes by. What do you have in mind to stop them? And when will enough be enough?


WRT war in Iraq: we picked up the right fight. While Hussein did not finance them, Democratic Iraq would be a blow to the Muslims that flew airplanes into our buildings. They hated Hussein for not being Muslim enough - how much more would they hate a real democratic government? And Hussein was ripe for smashing.

But we did not fight in the right way. Smashing Hussein had been the easy part. We could have done it in 91. It's what happened next that killed us. The way the Iraqi War was conducted is a huge disgrace on Bush and Co. I would call it a treason, but stupidity and hubris explains it better.

Was there a better way? Yes, certainly. Openly declare to the whole world what we are doing. Tell everyone who would listen that we're out to help those who like us and to hurt those that don't, no matter what the state of the relevant WMD programs. Start with Kurds, declare them an independent country, bribe Turks with the $300B we ended up spending anyway. Continue with Southern Shi'a, when they are ready. After 5 years of civil war in what's left of Saddam's country, move in and pick the pieces. After the success had been demonstrated for 10 years or so, look for other candidates. Lebanon and Palestinian territories come to mind. May be Syria would be ripe by then. Or Iran.

I am not saying that this is how it should have gone. My point is, we need to clean out the Middle East in some way. That place is the only wiper's nest with enough money to hurt us. We need a leader who will come up with the right way.






------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New so sunni's specifically salafi's from saudi attack us
and you want us to invade whom? listen the last two people breathing on the planet will have their hands on each others throats on a hilltop in jerusalem and you want us to get involved in that? No fucking way.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New You make me a bit sad...
that clueless totalitarian Russians have been added to our clueless totalitarian native-born mix.
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
New Tough.
Go find yourself a better mix, then.

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New Nice.
"Love it or leave it" is stupid enough from natives; from someone like you, it's the height of arrogance.

If you can't see *that* -- and if that doesn't give you even a *hint* that the rest of your opinions, stemming as they do from a mind that could come up with that, are slightly askance from reality -- then you truly are blind and deaf.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New Hey, "love it " is not an option, apparently
The options are to change the contents of the mix, change self, go find a new mix, or suffer. Which one is more realistic?

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New Suffering
I suspect there's a lot of it coming down the pipe for the US.
New Re: You confirm all that I say
You don't think we are at war (or, if we are, we ought to be at war with Saidi Arabia?).

We are not at war. And trying to fight this as if it was a war is part of the problem. Broad social movements can not be defeated by armies, short of outright genocide.

Terrorism is a criminal problem and should be treated as such. Doing anything else is giving in to the terrorist.
But we did not fight in the right way. Smashing Hussein had been the easy part. We could have done it in 91. It's what happened next that killed us. The way the Iraqi War was conducted is a huge disgrace on Bush and Co. I would call it a treason, but stupidity and hubris explains it better.

Was there a better way? Yes, certainly. Openly declare to the whole world what we are doing. Tell everyone who would listen that we're out to help those who like us and to hurt those that don't, no matter what the state of the relevant WMD programs.

In the long run that won't help either, just leave us with another set of problems. Just supporting countries that support us will create a bunch more Egypts and Uzbekistans. Countries where the ruling powers support us, but a big chunk of the underclass hates us.

Taking the long view, what we really should be doing is supporting real democratic governments, even if the current government doesn't like us. Get them engaged in the global commerce system. Help them raise their standard of living. None of these things will directly stop the problem, but they will reduce the forces that support and create terrorists. Think of it as social dampening rods.

Jay

New It's very, very simple.
We have no legitimate business in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a murderous bastard, true.

But then we haven't invaded Zimbabwe, or Myanmar, or Indonesia, or North Korea, or Syria, or Turkmenistan, or Saudi Arabia or any of the other sovereign nations headed up by murderous bastards who finance international terrorism and who have a penchant for torture.

All the military effort in Iraq would have been better spent finishing the job in Afghanistan.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
New I disagree
WRT war in Iraq: we picked up the right fight. While Hussein did not finance them, Democratic Iraq would be a blow to the Muslims that flew airplanes into our buildings. They hated Hussein for not being Muslim enough - how much more would they hate a real democratic government? And Hussein was ripe for smashing.


I disagree.

Sure, we could destroy Hussein easily enough.

Sure, a democratic Iraq would be just desserts for the Muslims.

But did ANYONE ask the Iraqies if they WANTED a Democracy?

You're no better than Hussein was. The entire concept of Democracy is SELF-RULE. We don't go into a country to "free" them.

Sigh.

Ultimately, we've been fighting yester-years war too. We going in with tanks and planes and enough troops that scream target. "Come hit me, I'm right here."

But does this kill our enemies? We could've responded in Afganistan, with a wall of tanks moving from one side of the country to the other, and I would've supported it.

But the real fight - is the fight no one is going to see. There are no tanks. There are no planes. There are small handguns, knives. Death in the middle of the night.

That's the war we need to fight. By going over there, infiltrating terror cells...and at the right time, killing them one by one.

I don't expect the Democrats to fix that, btw. That's all Executive Branch.
Expand Edited by Simon_Jester Nov. 13, 2006, 07:33:47 AM EST
New Even if everything you say were indeed confirmed...
...I'd prefer it to anything neocon. Retreat, tribute and whatever other bullshit you just spouted is better than endless, pointless conflict (not "war", we are not at war because there has been no goddam declaration of war by the Congress -- you claim to be such an Amerikan; you'd think you'd have learned just a smidgeon about the Constitution you so jingoistically claim to support).
jb4
"When the final history is written in Iraq, [link|http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmate/2006/tmate060926.gif|it'll look just like a comma.]"
George W. Bush, 24 Sep 06
New We're refusing to admit we're at war
Our enemies proclaimed they are at war with us many, many times. It takes two to have a war. Does it take two to have peace?

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New only one to make peace, 2 can declare a truce at best
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Yep, the only one still standing :) :(

------

179. I will not outsource core functions.
--
[link|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm|.]

New The only "war" we're at is the "was on drugs"
How well are we doing on that front?!?
jb4
"When the final history is written in Iraq, [link|http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmate/2006/tmate060926.gif|it'll look just like a comma.]"
George W. Bush, 24 Sep 06
New Don't forget the War on Christmas.
[link|http://www.wikiality.com/War_On_Christmas|War On Christmas].

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Wasn't that won by Wal-Mart?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New And don't forget the General:
[link|http://www.wikiality.com/Anti-Claus|The Anti-Claus].
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Post-election thoughts - (Arkadiy) - (29)
         I'm sad that you believe that - (drewk) - (18)
             You confirm all that I say - (Arkadiy) - (17)
                 so sunni's specifically salafi's from saudi attack us - (boxley)
                 You make me a bit sad... - (rcareaga) - (4)
                     Tough. - (Arkadiy) - (3)
                         Nice. - (CRConrad) - (2)
                             Hey, "love it " is not an option, apparently - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                 Suffering - (jake123)
                 Re: You confirm all that I say - (JayMehaffey)
                 It's very, very simple. - (pwhysall)
                 I disagree - (Simon_Jester)
                 Even if everything you say were indeed confirmed... - (jb4) - (7)
                     We're refusing to admit we're at war - (Arkadiy) - (6)
                         only one to make peace, 2 can declare a truce at best -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                             Yep, the only one still standing :) :( -NT - (Arkadiy)
                         The only "war" we're at is the "was on drugs" - (jb4) - (3)
                             Don't forget the War on Christmas. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 Wasn't that won by Wal-Mart? -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
                                 And don't forget the General: - (admin)
         you havnt been here long enough - (boxley)
         Are you forgetting your Karl Marx? :) - (a6l6e6x)
         Don't be so pessimistic. - (Another Scott) - (4)
             #2 - (bepatient) - (2)
                 400k soldiers ripping out everything that goes boom - (boxley) - (1)
                     You may have his genes, but Genghis is (properly) Dead. -NT - (Ashton)
             You can't? - (jb4)
         War? Jeeze - we make all our own enemies - (tuberculosis)
         Well stated. - (danreck) - (1)
             Condescend much? - (drewk)

*gloat*
84 ms