We can strike Iraq fast

Post #45,088 by marlowe 7/10/02 8:15:38 PM Reply	We can strike Iraq fast [link\|http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=536&e=5&cid=536&u=/ap/20020710/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_swift_attack_1\|So says Yahoo, anyway] Excerpt: WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is capable of launching a rapid attack on Iraq by marshaling 50,000 troops at the Kuwaiti border in roughly a week, airlifting them in and bringing their tanks and heavy equipment on ships through the Strait of Hormuz. That would give Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) just a few days' notice, rather than the six months he had before the 1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites). It also might eliminate America's need to rely on bases in neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan, whose governments say they want the United States to leave Iraq alone. I say: Just a few days' notice? Haven't we been warning him for ten years? Of course he might have been justified in thinking the last administration was bluffing. But not this one. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #45,094 by orion 7/10/02 9:03:22 PM Reply	Nothing like having Dubya finish his father's job. Should have taken out Saddam over ten years ago when Poppy Bush was in control. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,095 by Brandioch 7/10/02 9:35:30 PM Reply	Why do we want to?
Post #45,099 by orion 7/10/02 10:29:56 PM Reply	To flex our muscle and to show the other people in that area that we can do the same to their country if they don't behave. Sort of like the manager who comes home from a stressful day at work and kicks the dog, if he did that to a dog, image what he'd do to his employees? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,145 by marlowe 7/11/02 10:46:00 AM Reply	`Coz no one has a better idea. Especially not you. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #45,165 by Brandioch 7/11/02 12:13:19 PM Reply	Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't recognize those Iraqi troops.... That just invaded Seattle. Have they invaded us? No. Are they any threat to us? No. But you still say that I don't have a better idea than to invade them. To put this in context......(something I know you disaprove of)..... We invaded Iraq before, when they had invaded Kuwait. We invaded Germany when Germany invaded other countries. I'm not seeing Iraq invading anyone.......... I'm not seeing any REASON for us to plan to invade Iraq......... Here's a better idea, WHY DON'T WE STAY OUT OF IRAQ UNLESS THEY DO SOMETHING TO US OR ONE OF OUR ALLIES? Is that too complicated for you? To put this in VERY SIMPLE TERMS....... We're talking about invading Iraq 'cause Bush doesn't have any other policy. His ONLY option to validate his presidency is to keep picking on weaker countries. Saddam is NOT A THREAT to us.
Post #45,205 by orion 7/11/02 3:55:53 PM Reply	Oh please Iraq is building up weapons of biological and nuclear destruction. How long before Iraq uses them to launch an attack? Also how many Kurds must die before we take action against Saddam? Saddam is like Hitler part 2 just waiting to happen. Scwartzkopf was right a decade ago, we should have removed Saddam from power, or else he would become a problem later on. Always listen to those high ranking Generals, they didn't get to that rank by pealing potatos and changing light bulbs their whole career. Iraq also is supposed to have terrorist camps, should we leave these alone as well? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,210 by jb4 7/11/02 4:22:36 PM Reply	Oh please, yerself Always listen to those high ranking Generals, they didn't get to that rank by pealing potatos and changing light bulbs their whole career. No, they got to that rank by licking ass and playing politics their whole career[sic]. jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #45,216 by Brandioch 7/11/02 5:08:33 PM Reply	Think about that. Also how many Kurds must die before we take action against Saddam? Why do you believe the US should take action? Always listen to those high ranking Generals, they didn't get to that rank by pealing potatos and changing light bulbs their whole career. Those generals are the ones that lost Osama. I don't trust anything they say. Iraq also is supposed to have terrorist camps, should we leave these alone as well? So your claim is that Iraq is training terrorists to send against us? Again, my question is, what terrorist attack on the US has been from Iraq? I see a lot about al Queda. But those are Saudi's.
Post #45,219 by orion 7/11/02 5:16:06 PM Reply	They helped fund it at least in the USA if you pay someone to kill someone else then both people go to jail. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,229 by Brandioch 7/11/02 5:53:25 PM Reply	And that is what "patriotism" means today. Blind faith in the lies your government tells you. Pure hatred of "the enemy". And "the enemy" is whomever the government tells you it is. Don't think about whether your government is right or wrong BEFORE the attack. Attack first. Kill "the enemy". Beat him before he beats you. You KNOW he hates you. You KNOW it's just a matter of time before he kills YOU. You MUST strike now. If Saddam is funding the terrorists, and hosting the camps and such, why are all the attacks carried out by Saudi agents?
Post #45,235 by dmarker2 7/11/02 7:20:11 PM 7/11/02 8:36:46 PM Reply	Re: Oh please - littany of our own propaganda Sorry, but you are doing a wonderful job of repeating our propaganda at the expense of the facts. Is US going to attack Pakistan for having Nukes ? - where do we all think Osama Bin Laden might be right now ? - which country ? So we decide to attack Iraq for Nukes they 'might' have ??????? - no evidence, just somone's suspicion. No, that is not why US wants to attack Iraq. Iraq is a threat because of Saddam and big big imputable fact ....... SADDAM NATIONALISED IRAQ'S OIL INDUSTRY !!!!!! That is why US wants to attack - TO GET IT BACK !!!!!!. Put in place a pro US govt that allows the oil companies to resume their former assets. Stop the likes of Saddam from using Iraq's oil wealth to buy strength at the expense of western oil peace in the region. We had enough trouble with Gaddaffi when he went down the same path (using his countrys oil wealth to build a regional powerbase). So lets look at real politik vs buckets of hitlarian propaganda. Oil Oil Oil and our need to control its supply to protect our long term interests. The day we lose that control we will become the third world & the Arabs or whoever will call the global shots. Iraq is one link in that chain. Cheers Doug Edited by dmarker2 July 11, 2002, 08:36:46 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #45,209 by jb4 7/11/02 4:12:12 PM Reply	Hell, if they're gonna invade Seattle... .. let's just redirect them a bit farther south, then send them home with a hero's sendoff and the thanks from a grateful nation.... jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #45,220 by orion 7/11/02 5:19:01 PM Reply	It just might take another attack to convince some of you that this is a war on terrorism. What next/ Do we let the terrorists attack Seattle, how about New York again they still have some buildings standing? How about some more Anthrax Letters or another Dirty Bomb attempt? How long will it take before some of you understand that this is a war we are fighting, and that it is against terrorism to prevent more terrorist attacks from happening? It is an attack against those who funded the 9/11 attacks and helped Osama do them. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,227 by Ashton 7/11/02 5:46:15 PM Reply	So then.. "thrashing around" looks like Doing Something\ufffd ? Anthrax - last I (haven't) heard - No One has more than classic-rumors of who managed that neatly-timed diversion. It is Far from evident.. where the perp came from or his/her/their motivation (other than the obvious one of adding to confusion). BS ranges from a W-fan to Aristophanes. "Dirty Bomb" - the Comic Edition: Report of That 'arrest' was delayed some WEEKS, for its obvious aim of deflecting further attention - yet again - from the Ashcroft Covenant and other Admin bumblings and half-cocked gun discharges. There's a Huge gap between having the idea [possibly - there's nothing remotely like proof.. yet submitted] "in mind" and: accomplishing a fraction of the preparations. Thought crime now? I, for example: have the thought in mind of a beneficent object heading towards Redmond "from orbit". Shouldn't I be detained incommunicado while my thoughts are judged and the sentence carried out? (we don't have Trials anymore - at least not necessarily - in case your reading repertoire is severely limited, and You Didn't Know Who John Ashcroft Is). (Or the Millennium Patriot Act\ufffd) Do you really take Everything you read both literally AND as 'Truth'? One-at-a-Time? (It must be hell for you when.. next day "someone' claims the Opposite) Language was invented that men may disguise their thoughts from one another. \ufffd God 4777 BC All Rights Reserved
Post #45,228 by Brandioch 7/11/02 5:49:14 PM Reply	Enough of the bullshit. Name a recent attack on the US that has had an Iraqi terrorist in it. It just might take another attack to convince some of you that this is a war on terrorism. Nope. Just evidence that terrorism is coming out of Iraq. What next/ Do we let the terrorists attack Seattle, how about New York again they still have some buildings standing? Nope. Just identify the past attack that involved Iraqi terrorists. We don't need a new attack. But we do need a past attack. How about some more Anthrax Letters... Seems to be US in origin. Not Iraqi. ...or another Dirty Bomb attempt? Again, US operative DISCUSSING the POSSIBILITY of such an attack with SAUDI terrorists. No Iraqi. How long will it take before some of you understand that this is a war we are fighting, and that it is against terrorism to prevent more terrorist attacks from happening? As long as it takes you to identify the past attacks by Iraq. It is an attack against those who funded the 9/11 attacks and helped Osama do them. That attack was plotted by Saudi's and executed by Saudi's. Osama also has enough personal wealth to have paid for their plane tickets, training and living arrangements.
Post #45,232 by jb4 7/11/02 6:26:10 PM 7/11/02 6:27:04 PM Reply	War on Terrorism\ufffd, War on Drugs\ufffd, War on the Constitution... This is NOT a war on Anything. There has been no Declaration of War by the Congress, so lose that jingoistic bullshit. All your ravings could have been scripted by Ari Fleischer, for all the veracity contained within them. You parrot the company line well; expect your check in the mail. What this is is the Fascist script, being executed poorly by those not as well practiced in it as some of its predecessors. Every 2-bit tinhorn dictator from the middle ages through the '50s, '60s, '70s, ad nauseum has used the same ploy: redirect the attention of the vast unwashed to The Enemy\ufffd, thereby distracting them from their domestic plight, and having the happy side effect of solidifying thier popularity as they wrap themselves in their Flag and jingoistic sloganeering. As far as attacking Seattle, that would seem to suit Marlowe well, and if they happen to wipe out Redmond in the process...well........no great loss. All this chest thumping is wearing a bit thin. If we really wanted Osama, he'd have been dead within 72 hours, and we'd bee displaying is dead body on National Television\ufffd. Nah, He's much more usefull as a propaganda device alive. After all, we why should be be bothered investigating the Vice-Resident's possibly criminal machinations in Halliburton, when there's Evil\ufffd\ufffd to be fought? Stop shilling for these people, Norm. It's unbecoming... jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch Edited by jb4 July 11, 2002, 06:27:04 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #45,300 by marlowe 7/12/02 1:11:43 PM Reply	We could have Osama in 72 hours? Your faith in our nation's ability far exceeds mine. And I'm the one who gets called the resident jingoist around here. Next you'll be saying Ashcroft can walk on water. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #45,311 by Ashton 7/12/02 3:09:22 PM Reply	Read for comprehension, please - I believe the man said, If we really wanted Osama, he'd have been dead within 72 hours. I believe this tense connotes via, he'd have been: In the past. At the start of this adventure full of bellicose sound, fury and troop movements. Had we Really wanted Osama initially ... we would not have left the "closing-in on him phase" to mercenaries from the same milieu. As we did. That he was bound to escape the sieve which that border IS: was as inevitable as ... the present efforts of this Admin to follow the script of Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here. That barn door could not be closed by (cheap, expendable) proxies THEN. Yes, 20/20: but that is also called - failure to employ intelligent tactics, failure to notice the evident probabilities and act accordingly. This may not 'prove' that it was intended that Osama remain at large, as convenient Straw Devil, for propaganda's sake - there rarely is such proof in inherently devious maneuvering we call war. But try to get the tenses straight. Ashton
Post #45,322 by marlowe 7/12/02 4:01:48 PM Reply	Oh, silly me. He's only saying our country had supernatural powers back last fall, not now. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #45,331 by Brandioch 7/12/02 4:33:06 PM Reply	Is that the best you have? Shall I refresh your memory? Manuel Noriega Grenada Oh, why bother. We have enough examples of where our military went in and accomplished its mission quickly. There's nothing supernatural about NOT being stupid. But it is amusing to see the apologists for the current regime blame "incompetence" for the continuing failure to capture/kill Osama. Our intelligence operations are sooooo good that they MISSED the planned attack.... -BUT- Quickly managed to identify Osama as the leader -BUT- Didn't have the resources to kill/capture him -THEN- Completely lost him and the rest of the operatives. -NOW- We don't know who will attack from where or when. BUT WE KNOW WHO THE BAD GUYS ARE! Or so those incompetant fools claim. Of course, Marlowe believes them.
Post #45,333 by jb4 7/12/02 4:34:09 PM Reply	So how many straw men ARE you going to construct? Supernatural powers? Don't make me laugh...we can't eve fuckin elect ourselves a President anymore. What we do have are Navy Seals, Rangers, Black Bag artists of every ilk, mercenaries, and Wet Boys. We have the means to deliver these people basically anywhere we want, and any time we want (more or less). If we wanted Osama (past imperfect, for those of you keeping score), we would have had him (subjunctive pluperfect, acting as the conditional; often known as subjunctive 2, again for the grammatically challenged); jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #45,371 by orion 7/12/02 6:41:06 PM Reply	Could have had Osama in the past he was offered to the Clinton Administration, but they rejected the offer. Had they have known about the 9/11 attacks back then, they would have took him. See how if you let the bad ones go that they come back to bite you in the ss later on? I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,372 by Brandioch 7/12/02 6:57:35 PM Reply	Slightly different then that. No, what happened is one of the officials in Afghanistan wanted US support to "remove" one of his political opponents and, in exchange, said official would provide the US with "information" concerning someone he said Osama visited with.
Post #45,522 by wharris2 7/14/02 5:23:29 AM Reply	I think that's wrong The "gift" of Osama was in his pre-Afghanistan days, when he was in Syria, I believe, or one of those countries. In Afghanistan, we've known (at times) where he's been, but not where he is. You can disagree with a lot (I disagree with most) of what Clinton did, but his cruise missile attack on their terrorist training camp is supposed to have missed by only several hours. Even today, we don't know if he is living or dead, and if living, where. He's been reported to have kidney or liver problems (I forget which) - hell, he might be in a clinic in Switzerland. Presumably, if he's alive, if he's not that sick, he's in some hidden fortified cave or hidden in plain sight ala the Sherlock Holmes short story in one of the Pakistani refugee camps. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
Post #45,607 by jb4 7/15/02 9:10:25 AM Reply	The Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle, Osama division In Afghanistan, we've known (at times) where he's been, but not where he is. jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #45,319 by inthane-chan 7/12/02 3:37:49 PM Reply	Geography lesson. Redmond is to the EAST of Seattle, not to the south. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame-fest. InThane - Now running Ashton rev 2.0
Post #45,106 by JayMehaffey 7/10/02 11:44:51 PM Reply	Bluffing Saddam would have to be an idiot to think this administration is bluffing. The administration we have now would put a gun to their own head and yell 'I'm not bluffing, one move and I get it' and mean it. In any case, killing Saddam would actually be easy. It's not like his army could slow us down much. The problem is always one of what happens afterwards. We have a consistant history of sticking losers and dictators into power, usually worse then ones we took out of power. Jay
Post #45,211 by jb4 7/11/02 4:23:42 PM Reply	ROFL!!! jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #45,118 by dmarker2 7/11/02 3:42:31 AM 7/11/02 9:25:58 AM Reply	Re: We can strike Iraq fast - goody goody - a parade Sarcasm off; "Just a few days' notice? Haven't we been warning him for ten years? Of course he might have been justified in thinking the last administration was bluffing. But not this one." NO! For 10 years US UK & Germany encouraged Saddam to attack Iran after the Iranian revolution. Ignorant people will not know this fact. Those three countries used him as a proxy and at the time he truly though US was his friend. many millions of Iraqis & Iranians died in the 8 years of war. US UK & Germany secretly (now out in the open) supplied him with funding (in the guise of agricultural loans) to buy & build weaponry. Saddam amassed the biggest and best equipt land army in the region. The governments of Thatcher & Kohl & Bush told companies to ignore restrictions on shipping weapons raw materials to Iraq (later after the gulf war, the British govt (also after Thatcher) tried prosecuting some companies for illegal shipment of prohibited goods to Iraq - the prosecutions wer withdrawn in great embarassment when several of these companies produced letters from the Thatcher admin asking them to ship the items in British national interests. Saddam used the agricultural loans to produce 'fertilizer' later placed in the nose cones of missiles. In reality, we in the west became concerned because Saddam was becoming too popular and essentially too powerful. Toward the end of the war Ollie North arranged to supply the Iranians with counter weapons. Saddam was royally pissed off at what many in the region saw as an enormous double cross. The reason Saddam went into Kuwait is over what the Kuwaitis were doing by way of slant drilling into Iraqi fields. This was happening at a time when Iraq's oil infrastructure was smashed & they had no real income. Kuwait was part of Iraq until hived off by western powers to protect British oil interests. Saddam sought US permission to use force & April Gillespie the US ambasador wrote to him telling him that how Iraq chose to solve the dispute was their business so Saddam went in then just like Norriega was trapped in Panama, Saddam found he had walked into a trap. The US wanted to use the Kuwait invasion to 'decomission' the many weapons Saddam built or aqquired. Call Saddam what you want but he was actually very innovative and despite our propaganda was very popular not just in Iraq but the Arab world. That is not good for us so we commenced putting him out of business. The act of bastardry by Iraq to set fire to the oil fields was an act of anger at the events and that Kuwait now had impunity to continue to slant drill into Iraqs oil. Just image for one minute what US would do in similar position - but I am sure you don't believe a word I am writing (or care one iota either way). My point here is to be intelligent about your 'facts' Saddam is our enemy because he was to smart & too popular and had almost built an Arab nuke capability - we in the west don't want that so watch out Saddam. The propaganda crap we level at him is to help disguise our real motives (western supremacy and oil realpolitik). Doug Marker Edited by dmarker2 July 11, 2002, 09:25:58 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #45,146 by marlowe 7/11/02 10:48:54 AM Reply	I meant of course the past ten years. I thought that was implicit. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #45,119 by Ashton 7/11/02 3:51:29 AM Reply	Why stop there? Might is Right + You're Right = a match made in We've been preparing for half a century - nobody who makes military toys is ever satisfied without Trying Them. We can initiate WW-The Last anytime it seems politically 'necessary'.. as, whenever \ufffd the economy tanks further (like with Dad). \ufffd too many Questions about The Resident's personal [oil] deals keep coming. \ufffd " " " " the Veep's energy deals and accounting get scanned minutely. \ufffd " " " " Other [oil] [pipeline] deals are ferreted out. \ufffd the Popularity rating tanks as Civil Liberties backlash ascends. \ufffd The USSC has an epiphany and 5 resign after admitting suffering apoplexy over a recent coup d'etat. Any or all - and you might get to see those muscles flexed. Enjoy.
Post #45,150 by marlowe 7/11/02 10:56:51 AM Reply	With, you it's all oil. Hey bub, there's terrorism going on, and Saddam's behind much of it. In fact, there's a whole lot going on on this planet that isn't directly related to petroleum. The trouble with you is you've got a unary world view, with occasional lapses into nihilism. Zero and one are fine as digits, but don't work all that well as bases. Try upgrading to base two, and discover the joys of typologically efficient enumeration. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #45,167 by Brandioch 7/11/02 12:15:54 PM Reply	Saddam == Osama? Hey bub, there's terrorism going on, and Saddam's behind much of it. WTF?!? "terrorism going on"? Where? And Saddam is behind it? I thought the CURRENT spiel from the White House was that OSAMA was behind the terrorism. Okay.... Name ONE attack against the US (not during the Kuwait invasion) that is tracable to Saddam.
Post #45,206 by orion 7/11/02 3:57:15 PM Reply	More than one terrorist out there Saddam and others have funded Osama's network and given him aid. All we are trying to do is shut off that aid and clean out the terrorist and NBC (Nuclear Biological and Chemical) weapons plants in Iraq. Osama may also be hiding in Iraq as far as we know. *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,218 by Brandioch 7/11/02 5:15:54 PM Reply	Think about that. Saddam and others have funded Osama's network and given him aid. So, we're visiting just retribution on him for aiding the evil Osama? Not for something he's actually done to us? Or our allies? All we are trying to do is shut off that aid and clean out the terrorist and NBC (Nuclear Biological and Chemical) weapons plants in Iraq. No. Taking over a country is way more than shutting off some supposed aid to a terrorist. Iraq HAS no money. We've frozen it. We've embargoed them. As for nukes, we're going to take over a country because that country's leader doesn't like us and wants nukes. So, only people we approve of can have nukes? And THAT mentality is why we are so hated over there.
Post #45,222 by mhuber 7/11/02 5:21:39 PM Reply	Saddam is a secularist The Islamists don't like him, and he doesn't them. He's a real bad guy in a lot of ways, but in a War on Terrorism, invading Iraq represents a major loss of focus. He's any number of kinds of rat-bastard, but he isn't currently a terrorist. When 41 wimped out last time, it was to keep the coalition together. I don't see a coalition forming in the first place this time. If we invade Iraq without Iraq doing something beyond borders first, we will be going in almost alone. Probably get a little symbolic support from a few of our staunchest allies (I can't see Great Britain not backing us short of an unprovoked first strike on the Netherlands) but the diplomacy is going to be bad. 41 wasn't concerned (to the point of blowing the chance to shut down Saddam completely) about the diplomacy because he's some kind of lefty peacnik, and I doubt that going it alone is a much better idea now than it was then. And any strategy that calls for the Kurds doing anything is doomed - they don't have the MTV attention span, and haven't forgotten how it went down last time they put their lives on the line to help us. ---- United we stand Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
Post #45,230 by Ashton 7/11/02 6:02:37 PM Reply	Yup.. were I a Kurd With vivid memory of body parts and heaped dead burnt bodies of my kith & kin, after reading Murican leaflets urging: "Action! to Save Your Country From the Beast - We Be Helpin Ya, Bro!" I'd be in Ashcroft's Covenant House in Guantanamo, or trying really hard to qualify. The Prescott Bushie clan was ever about [oil], $$, emulatin that there Dallas Dynasty Tee Vee series.. and as Nixon? Reagan? said about Dad-Bushie: ~ the kinda guy you appoint to commissions. I recall vividly the weasel words rationalizing US inaction While the helicopters We Allowed To Fly! were wiping out these people. It was such an ASSHOLE-Cowardly piece of studied, CPA/CIA-approved inaction. And it still is. Empire knows no shame. Ashton
Post #45,301 by marlowe 7/12/02 1:17:32 PM 7/12/02 1:28:39 PM Reply	Well, so much for blaming religious fanaticism. I've always maintained that it was merely a symptom, not a root cause. Brutal dictators are another manifestation. The root cause is the traditional attitudes that prevail in that part of the world. The grievance fixation, the contempt for logic and facts, the xenophobia, and the amoral familism. But why shouldn't be aligned with the terror groups that use the religious rhetoric? Hatred makes strange bedfellows, after all. Why, look at all the Western leftists championing their cause. Kind of puts the lie to all those protestations of liberal ideals, doesn't it? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage. Edited by marlowe July 12, 2002, 01:28:39 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #45,314 by orion 7/12/02 3:27:14 PM Reply	Don't forget that Saddam has promised $25,000USD to any suicide bomber's family. That is a lot of money over in that area. Sure, people here say Saddam is a nice guy and Saddam and Iraq didn't do anything to us. Such a nice guy, maybe they should invite him to their child's next birthday party? US Intelligence reports say otherwise, that he is a lying sack of sht building up NBC weapons and funding terrorism. I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #45,337 by Brandioch 7/12/02 4:45:07 PM Reply	And so the fantasy is continued. Don't forget that Saddam has promised $25,000USD to any suicide bomber's family. That is a lot of money over in that area. Yet you are unable to identify ANY Iraqi terrorists. Yet Saddam is offering A LOT of money for people to become one. But you can't name any Iraqi terrorists. But Saddam is offering A LOT of money for people to become one. But you can't name any Iraqi terrorists. Saddam is a "BAD MAN". He is offering A LOT of money for people to become terrorists. But you can't name any Iraqi terrorists. We KNOW he's a "BAD MAN" because our government tells us so. We all trust our government, don't we? Our government wouldn't LIE to us, would it?
Post #45,346 by mhuber 7/12/02 5:21:06 PM Reply	Never said Saddam was a nice guy Just that he isn't an appropriate target if what we are doing is a war on terrorism. He's yer basic conventional military threat. You know, with armies and stuff. Yer basic brutal dictator who slaughters his own people. When he attacks, he uses his own planes, soldiers in uniform, all the standard stuff. I'll shed no tears for him when (not if) he dies violently (probably as part of a coup, killed by someone near and dear to him). But he isn't an international terrorist, unless you extend the meaning of the term so far that every country that has participated in military activities that result in death outside that country's borders (which includes most countries, and by definition all the good guys in WWII) is also. He's a dictator, a military threat, a war criminal (gassing inconvenient populations qualifies), an all-around bad guy. But we are supposedly in a war at this point, and invading Iraq diverts resources from that war. Unless it isn't really a war or terrorism, but a war on all the stuff GWB doesn't like. ---- United we stand Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
Post #45,315 by Ashton 7/12/02 3:29:19 PM Reply	There's said to be a cure for your xenophobia You know: the part where you elide the "familial fanaticism" here, amongst the Dynasties who vie for rule of the consumers; the "contempt for logic and facts" of our constant pursuit of a larger and larger share of the world's [oil] and the $$/power which attends its use - via the force of arms and econ. As to hatred: the very first ploy of the hate-filled ever is the creation of Us/Them - your constant mantra. Evidently too, your 'knowledge' of Them derives from cant-filled screeds, second- and third- hand regurgitations from fellow xenophobes. You have no direct experience of any Thems in their own milieu: you just read and do Boolean logic and conclude from across the pond - Yup, We be Different from Them so, They aren't exactly like Us: so screw 'em. Oh the cure? Get off digital academic ass and go meet some of Them. (Yes, there's a risk of your being strangled just for obviously being a smug jingoistic twit ... but - them's the breaks.)
Post #45,212 by Ashton 7/11/02 4:30:46 PM Reply	Re: With, you it's all oil. Just in the above scenario: 2:3 ain't bad. Unlike you, I do not look for a Single.. attitude? issue? mindset... as explains every Hogboblin on which the politicobabble du jour focuses its bleary slogans. Nevertheless.. (and while there are a mere handful of root-causes which can explain multiplicities of phony issues): [oil] is the frequent Pop-Up AD for just about every tin-pot dictator we ever 'aid', and currently the Res+Veep Texas-Taliban-pipeline connection will Not go away. Almost by definition - the buzz worlds fed from DC are diversions first, oversimplifications always - and to ignore that fact of Murican bafflegab is to be a perpetual patsy. ~~Cherchez la femme?~~ Follow the [oil] / $$ / Corporation / Greed
Post #45,304 by marlowe 7/12/02 1:30:37 PM Reply	Bafflegab? That's the name for it? I've been calling it "Ashtonian." Though I considerd "Ashtonese." [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Everything's a mystery until you figure out how it works. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.

Welcome to IWETHEY!