PDA

View Full Version : An Alternative Proposal for Bush


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


David Orange
01-13-2007, 02:29 PM
Bush has asked for an alternative proposal for his "surge" plan.

How about this?

Let Al Maliki prove NOW that he will cooperate.

Why send another 21,500 service people over just to find out THEN that Al Maliki won't cooperate?

Why?

Well, honestly, I think it's because Bush WANTS to put more men over there and hang it up until the next President comes and has to take the blame for whatever happens. The truth is, ALL the blame for this hellish fiasco belongs solely to George W. Bush.

Eric Shinseki told Bush before he invaded that he needed something like 300,000 to 500,000 men to control Iraq after the invasion. What did George do? He fired Shinseki--a much better, more intelligent and honorable man than himself.

Now Bush wants to throw an extra 21,500 soldiers into the meat grinder with no guarantee that Al Maliki will cooperate and no meaningful recourse if he doesn't. What's he going to do? INVADE him? This "surge" idea is like making a modest down payment long after the accumulated interest dwarfes it. If Bush bullies this "surge" through (What? Was he DRUNK when LBJ did this and called it "escalation"?), he will still end up with a force far too small to effectively control that civil war.

Donald Rumsfeld stupidly said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have."

How stupid is that? Would you go to dinner with the money you happen to have in your pocket, or would you make sure you had enough before you went into the restaurant? Would you buy a million-dollar house with the income you happen to be making or would you either buy a cheaper house or get a bigger income?

The anti-war movement is not primarily motivated by the misery of civilian and military deaths, but by the needlessness of those deaths, the arrogance and smug superiority with which Bush ordered them, the lies and manipulations he used to bamboozle his supporters to believe in this needless adventure.

Now he is grasping at straws and the substance of anything he does from here on will be simply to leave the ungodly mess in someone else's hands.

He did something good in Afghanistan, but he abandoned it before it was even half done. AGAIN the Afghans are abandoned by an American administration and while Bin Laden remains free to thumb his nose at our incompetence, Iraq has become the very haven for terrorists that Bush claimed he was going to war to prevent.

Oh, and let's get that straight: BUSH did not go to war. He has sent everyone else's sons, daughters, fathers and even mothers to face an underfunded and crudely planned fiasco in hell while he smirks and makes speeches, grinning while he speaks of the deaths of thousands of people far better than himself.

BEST alternative? Bush resigns and his successor has him tried for war crimes.

David

Mike Sigman
01-13-2007, 03:39 PM
Eric Shinseki told Bush before he invaded that he needed something like 300,000 to 500,000 men to control Iraq after the invasion. What did George do? He fired Shinseki--a much better, more intelligent and honorable man than himself.Great, but it's on the record and in Tommy Franks' book what HE told Bush. Or are you just picking and choosing facts to suit yourself?

There were far bigger screwups and setbacks in World War II... simply because no one has a crystal ball. What we DO have is one of the largest selections of anti-American Monday Morning Quarterbacks that the world has ever seen. Couple that with the weirdest strategy for winning (not) a war that the world has ever seen ... "winning the hearts and minds of the enemy population"... and of course there's failure.

Bush has now noted..... far too late.... that one of the big screwups has been the restrictions we've put on our own soldiers. Too late, Bushy. As a couple of generals have now said... if you'd done that instead of "hearts and minds" BS 3 years ago, we'd have been out of this mess.

And strange.... our huge "anti-war" crowd never said a word when Clinton went into Bosnia. Partisanship is far more important to our Left than any real concern about "the troops" who the mention with such lip-service. Right? ;) So let's leave this faux concern about the troops out of Leftist rants. It's an insult to the troops.

Mike

David Orange
01-13-2007, 04:38 PM
Great, but it's on the record and in Tommy Franks' book what HE told Bush. Or are you just picking and choosing facts to suit yourself?

I don't remember what Franks said, but it looks to me like Shinseki had it dead on. A typical Bush tactic to fire (or smear) those who tell the truth.

There were far bigger screwups and setbacks in World War II... simply because no one has a crystal ball.

I don't think WWII was "elective" as was this invasion of Iraq. And plenty of people knew without a crystal ball that invading Baghdad would lead to exactly what we have now. GHW Bush knew it. Dick'em Cheney knew it. He said at the end of the first conflict that invading Baghdad would involve a bloody quagmire and the rebuilding of another nation's entire government. Why did he "forget" those facts this time around?

What we DO have is one of the largest selections of anti-American Monday Morning Quarterbacks that the world has ever seen.

The anti-Americans will you always have among you, but opposing this fiasco in Iraq is not the same thing. We were doing the right thing in Afghanistan, but the chickenhawk abandoned them again and pursued his personal animosity for Saddam at the cost of thousands of American lives and untold thousands of Iraqi's lives. Bush was dead set on invading Iraq long before 9/11 and he used that tragedy like he used Terry Schiavo. He has no shame and all his pride is unwarranted. It's our duty as citizens to protest. Most 2nd amendment boosters talk about how we have to keep guns to prevent government tyranny. Yet to raise one's voice in protest is considered somehow unAmerican.

Couple that with the weirdest strategy for winning (not) a war that the world has ever seen ... "winning the hearts and minds of the enemy population"... and of course there's failure.

You're talking about Bush's strategy?

Bush has now noted..... far too late.... that one of the big screwups has been the restrictions we've put on our own soldiers. Too late, Bushy. As a couple of generals have now said... if you'd done that instead of "hearts and minds" BS 3 years ago, we'd have been out of this mess.

But there's no reason to believe that even the increased number of troops will not face restrictions from Al Maliki. And it would be all to easy for an outraged Shiite population to completely and permanently sever the 400 mile supply line from Kuwait that our forces depend on. If that happens, we could literally see a huge part of our forces swallowed up and destroyed in Iraq.

And strange.... our huge "anti-war" crowd never said a word when Clinton went into Bosnia. Partisanship is far more important to our Left than any real concern about "the troops" who the mention with such lip-service.

I was out of the country when the Bosnia thing was happening and I never knew much about it. But I think it was managed a hell of a lot better than what we have now. As I said, the needless death is an awful part of every war, but in this particular conflict, every single death is the result of George Dumbya's enormous ego and smug self-satisfaction.

So let's leave this faux concern about the troops out of Leftist rants. It's an insult to the troops.

I think it's far more insulting to put a chickenhawk in charge of their lives, send them into Iraq without sufficient armor, renege on the limits of their time in combat, send them back before their time is due, and all the other indignities Bumbya has heaped upon them.

David

Neil Mick
01-13-2007, 04:53 PM
Bush has asked for an alternative proposal for his "surge" plan.

How about this?

Let Al Maliki prove NOW that he will cooperate.

How can al-Maleki prove that he will cooperate, when he is barely in charge of what goes on in Baghdad? Notice? His nonresponse to Bush's SoTA speaks volumes.

Why send another 21,500 service people over just to find out THEN that Al Maliki won't cooperate?

Why?

Well, honestly, I think it's because Bush WANTS to put more men over there and hang it up until the next President comes and has to take the blame for whatever happens. The truth is, ALL the blame for this hellish fiasco belongs solely to George W. Bush.

Agreed.

Eric Shinseki told Bush before he invaded that he needed something like 300,000 to 500,000 men to control Iraq after the invasion. What did George do? He fired Shinseki--a much better, more intelligent and honorable man than himself.

Now Bush wants to throw an extra 21,500 soldiers into the meat grinder with no guarantee that Al Maliki will cooperate and no meaningful recourse if he doesn't. What's he going to do? INVADE him? This "surge" idea is like making a modest down payment long after the accumulated interest dwarfes it. If Bush bullies this "surge" through (What? Was he DRUNK when LBJ did this and called it "escalation"?), he will still end up with a force far too small to effectively control that civil war.

Donald Rumsfeld stupidly said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have."

How stupid is that? Would you go to dinner with the money you happen to have in your pocket, or would you make sure you had enough before you went into the restaurant? Would you buy a million-dollar house with the income you happen to be making or would you either buy a cheaper house or get a bigger income?

Nice analogy.

The anti-war movement is not primarily motivated by the misery of civilian and military deaths, but by the needlessness of those deaths, the arrogance and smug superiority with which Bush ordered them, the lies and manipulations he used to bamboozle his supporters to believe in this needless adventure.

I don't agree. I think that the anti-war movement IS primarily motivated by the high body-count, rather than the "right-ness" of the invasion and occupation.

Consider: we were the primary instigators of the Sanctions, which in practice could only be called genocide against the Iraqi children. It certainly didn't hurt Hussein, all that much. But, we let the Sanctions drag on for over a DECADE, first by knowingly (and illegally) destroying their infrastructure, and then embargoing such dangerous items as agricultural equipment, yogurt-making machines, and almost going so far as to embargo vaccines for children (for diptheria, cholera, and the like).

And, what did Madeleine Albright famously say about 1.5 million children dying? "If it brings down Hussein: it was worth the cost." :grr: Nice, that she can be so blithe about the lives of innocent children.

But, while her sentiment may not be wholeheartedly embraced, her laissez faire attitude about Iraqi lives, unfortunately, is, by the American ppl. If we were "winning" this "war:" the anti-war response would be much more muted, and unpopular.

IMO, there's something basically hypocritical, about this attitude. It's like accepting that your neighbor likes to beat up old women and children for their social security checks and their candy and accepting it, so long as they don't beat up YOUR aunt, or bother YOUR kids.

Now he is grasping at straws and the substance of anything he does from here on will be simply to leave the ungodly mess in someone else's hands.

See, IMO the whole war was wrong, start to finish. We shouldn't have invaded (yes, Virginia, the weapons inspections were working, and were far more economical than an invasion and costly occupation, which only seems to increase the destabilization).

He did something good in Afghanistan,

...such as...? :crazy:

but he abandoned it before it was even half done. AGAIN the Afghans are abandoned by an American administration and while Bin Laden remains free to thumb his nose at our incompetence, Iraq has become the very haven for terrorists that Bush claimed he was going to war to prevent.

Oh, and let's get that straight: BUSH did not go to war. He has sent everyone else's sons, daughters, fathers and even mothers to face an underfunded and crudely planned fiasco in hell while he smirks and makes speeches, grinning while he speaks of the deaths of thousands of people far better than himself.

BEST alternative? Bush resigns and his successor has him tried for war crimes.

David

Yep, total agreement with you, there.

Mark Freeman
01-13-2007, 04:55 PM
Bush has asked for an alternative proposal for his "surge" plan.



Call me naive, but hadn't the ISG already done that? :(

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
01-13-2007, 05:01 PM
I don't remember what Franks said, but it looks to me like Shinseki had it dead on. A typical Bush tactic to fire (or smear) those who tell the truth. I'm going to stop right here. You don't know what you're talking about, once again. Franks listed himself and all the generals that wanted a small, rapid force. You're picking and choosing your facts in a rather clueless way.I think it's far more insulting to put a chickenhawk in charge of their lives, send them into Iraq without sufficient armor, renege on the limits of their time in combat, send them back before their time is due, and all the other indignities Bumbya has heaped upon them. You may have missed a few of the fairly analytical dissertations about the characters of people who make this "chickenhawk" charge. It's pure personal attack. Where did you serve? Maybe we should bring up the point that Al Gore tried to prevent the votes of servicemen from counting in the 2000 election because he knew that most military votes are Republican.... for the simple reason that the percentage of Dem's and libs who serve in the military is very small. They complain... but they don't serve in meaningful numbers.

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-13-2007, 05:06 PM
Call me naive, but hadn't the ISG already done that? :(

regards,Well, the Brits aren't going to "surge".... the same types of liberals who blocked any action against Hitler are now blocking any actions against the Islamic threat.

The ISG was just one committee.... just because it was the one the liberal media wanted to hear, doesn't mean there wasn't other input. Notice that on the ISG there was not one single military person. Do you really want a war that is controlled by civilians? But wait.... what do you care so much about what the US and Bush do? Isn't your country something of a mess in terms of crime and employment? Go worry about the UK for a change.

Better yet, go to the Guardian archives and read the comments from Americans to the Brits who wanted to tell us how to run a certain election.

Mike

David Orange
01-13-2007, 05:31 PM
How can al-Maleki prove that he will cooperate, when he is barely in charge of what goes on in Baghdad?

Al Sadr and he are hand-in-glove. Al Maliki supports the murders of the Sunnis. He doesn't need to control something that's going the way he wants it and the Americans simply protect him in his power.

His nonresponse to Bush's SoTA speaks volumes.

To me, it says that he has no intention of doing what Bush says, that Bush is speaking for himself and that surge or no surge, things in Iraq are going just fine to suit him.

I think that the anti-war movement IS primarily motivated by the high body-count, rather than the "right-ness" of the invasion and occupation.

War is a very sad fact of life. I don't think the fighting in Afghanistan provoked the kind of protest we see toward the fiasco in Iraq. Americans understand sacrifice for a just cause, but Bush asks us to sacrifice our children for his pride and ego.

Consider: we were the primary instigators of the Sanctions, which in practice could only be called genocide against the Iraqi children.

I don't agree. Saddam just took what money their was for his own good. The sanctions didn't kill Iraqi children. Saddam did. And still, incredibly, they were better off with him in power (or removed by some more intelligent means) than they are now, after George Bush got involved.

David

Neil Mick
01-13-2007, 05:43 PM
The sanctions didn't kill Iraqi children. Saddam did

I'm sorry, David: but this statement belies reality.

I don't seem to recall Saddam agreeing to starve his people. Sure, he played his stupid macho poker-game of "do-I-have-wmds-or-don't-I (and thus, he's indirectly responsible)," but he didn't decide to bomb his own infrastructure and embargo needed supplies.

The last two directors of the Oil-for-Food Program called the Sanctions as little more than genocide. Yeah, Hussein was partly responsible: but your logic of Hussein being responsible falls in line with blaming a torture-victim for all the punishment he gets, because he's being so stubborn.

When do the main perpetrators of this genocide get called into account? :mad: IMO, it's been past-due for over a decade.

Mark Freeman
01-13-2007, 06:34 PM
Well, the Brits aren't going to "surge".... the same types of liberals who blocked any action against Hitler are now blocking any actions against the Islamic threat.

The ISG was just one committee.... just because it was the one the liberal media wanted to hear, doesn't mean there wasn't other input. Notice that on the ISG there was not one single military person. Do you really want a war that is controlled by civilians? But wait.... what do you care so much about what the US and Bush do? Isn't your country something of a mess in terms of crime and employment? Go worry about the UK for a change.

Better yet, go to the Guardian archives and read the comments from Americans to the Brits who wanted to tell us how to run a certain election.

Mike

What have Brits got to do with blocking Bush's surge? :freaky:

I thought the war was controlled by civilians, the military doesn't declare war governments do, the military just do their bidding. Soldiers are civilians in uniform. Unless it is a Military Junta which I don't think either of our countries are, yet. ;)

Are people outside of the US not aloud to have an opinion? :(

Isn't my country in something of a mess in terms of crime and unemployment? - Actually no, unemployment figures have been down since the conservatives were ousted and have been pretty steady ever since, our economy has been relatively stable too. And some categories of crime are definitely down while others are admittedly up. However, you probably will explain to me how I have been brainwashed and can't see the truth. :rolleyes:

Your method of attacking anything and any person that doesn't fall into your narrow view of the world is disingenuous.

Who formed the ISG? and for what purpose? I'll rely on my US breathrin to inform me.

Mike I'm sure you are the only forum member who believes that an opinion is only valid if it comes from the same side.

I did read with some amusement the Guardian article prior to the last election in your country. It was a bit daft in my view, and some of the comments from the americans to their uk counterparts were valid, some funny and some taken in the spirit that was intended, some quite hateful and some just plain ill informed and bigoted.

Reports over here state that approx 70%+ of the US population are not behind Bush's new strategy. Are they right or is it my liberal news media lying to me?? They also aired a prominent Republican stating that Bush's strategy would be the biggest foreign policy mistake since Vietnam. Again, true or not. You seem to know where the truth :rolleyes: lies.

regards

Mark

I'm listening to Marvin Gaye's "What's Goin On" right now, it seems just as apt now as it did then. :cool:

Mike Sigman
01-13-2007, 07:01 PM
I did read with some amusement the Guardian article prior to the last election in your country. It was a bit daft in my view, and some of the comments from the americans to their uk counterparts were valid, some funny and some taken in the spirit that was intended, some quite hateful and some just plain ill informed and bigoted.But see, Mark.... your comments are mainly about the Americans in relation to that "daft" article. The absurdity of Brits constantly and negatively worrying about the US and giving advice never crosses your mind. The Europeans should simply shut up, given their record for so mismanaging things that they've caused two world wars resulting in the deaths of millions. I.e., the opinion of Europeans on how to run the world is useless.

European arrogance is to be admired just for its size, but look at something simple, like the Bosnia thing, that the Europeans once again simply couldn't handle. Show me something, anything, that validates European opinions as anything other than useless backbiting from people who can't handle their own affairs, much less the world's.

How well have the Europeans handled the Iran problem with their much-vaunted "diplomacy" which is more and more beginning to resemble the way they handled Hitler prior to WWII? Maybe if you worried more about European failures rather than your constant perception of American failures, you could get more done?

Oh.... and am I "euro-bashing"? Sure... but even if we put our backs to it, we couldn't catch up with the "America bashing" that seems to be the major sport of Europe.

Regards,

Mike

Mark Freeman
01-13-2007, 07:29 PM
But see, Mark.... your comments are mainly about the Americans in relation to that "daft" article. The absurdity of Brits constantly and negatively worrying about the US and giving advice never crosses your mind.

You seem to be very well balanced Mike, you have a chip on both shoulders ;)

I thought the guardian readership giving advice to one small town in the US was ill advised or 'daft' as I had said. The comments from the americans was mixed as I said. Where is the problem? you take it as a cue to spew out another round of Euro bashing, hence-


The Europeans should simply shut up, given their record for so mismanaging things that they've caused two world wars resulting in the deaths of millions. I.e., the opinion of Europeans on how to run the world is useless.

European arrogance is to be admired just for its size, but look at something simple, like the Bosnia thing, that the Europeans once again simply couldn't handle. Show me something, anything, that validates European opinions as anything other than useless backbiting from people who can't handle their own affairs, much less the world's.

and
How well have the Europeans handled the Iran problem with their much-vaunted "diplomacy" which is more and more beginning to resemble the way they handled Hitler prior to WWII? Maybe if you worried more about European failures rather than your constant perception of American failures, you could get more done?

I'm plenty aware of European shortcomings, but the thread was started specifically about GWB, not European history and it's relative successes and failures.

Oh.... and am I "euro-bashing"? Sure... but even if we put our backs to it, we couldn't catch up with the "America bashing" that seems to be the major sport of Europe.

Oh I don't know Mike, you seem to be playing a blinder for your 'side' :rolleyes:

In my lifetime, my experience has been one where many of us over here, looked to the US with some level of envy, your better material life, your more open government, better dentistry, to name a few. US bashing did not start in earnest until you elected your present president, and he started to make unilateral policy desicions that didn't seem to respect 'the rest of the world' . Don't blame us for having an opinion, look to why it might be that way. :p

I'm sure things will change once your next elections are out of the way and the next president (whatever their political colour) changes tack. The Neo-cons have had their day, others will have theirs.
What are you going to do if the Democrats get in? The rest of the world might breath a collective sigh of relief, which may drown out your gnashing of teeth ;)

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
01-13-2007, 08:41 PM
You seem to be very well balanced Mike, you have a chip on both shoulders ;)

I thought the guardian readership giving advice to one small town in the US was ill advised or 'daft' as I had said. The comments from the americans was mixed as I said. Where is the problem? you take it as a cue to spew out another round of Euro bashing, That's odd, Mark.... I see most of your posts as negative to the US. Constantly. It seems to depend on whose ox is getting gored, doesn't it? ;) I'm plenty aware of European shortcomings, but the thread was started specifically about GWB, not European history and it's relative successes and failures. Glass houses, Mark. Glass houses. What proposals and *actions* have the Europeans taken of any substance in decades, Mark. They talk. The Isam issue was quelled temporarily by the after-actions of World War I, but it has grown and grown until it has begun outright attacks on the West... again. Bush is just a passing president affected by the ramifications of an anti-West, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, etc., religion which, unfortunately, makes its civil laws an indivisible aspect of its "religion". Right or wrong, Bush is at least doing something. Europe is doing nothing but complaining.... and going under. Look to your own problems. Frankly, I'm sure if a poll were taken in the US about the love for our sometimes-when-they-need-something European "allies", the poll would be pretty low.

If I saw you worrying aloud about the problems in Europe as much as you do with the US, I would say nothing, I assure you, Mark. As it is, your cloak of righteousness seems tattered, in my eyes. :)In my lifetime, my experience has been one where many of us over here, looked to the US with some level of envy, your better material life, your more open government, better dentistry, to name a few. US bashing did not start in earnest until you elected your present president, and he started to make unilateral policy desicions that didn't seem to respect 'the rest of the world' . Don't blame us for having an opinion, look to why it might be that way. :p If you look back at Reagan (another highly reviled "cowboy" in the European press and opinion), the truth is that Europe always likes a near-socialist Democrat and despises any American president that doesn't put Europes selfish interests first. That's it, simply put.

You want an American that will continue to lean over backward for Europe and not one who will look out primarily for US interests. You want NATO, with the US footing the bill. You want the US to take the short side of every trade agreement or you'll "hate America". You want the US to cut its tariffs while Europe maintains the highest protective tariffs in the world. And so on. You liked Clinton because he would do your bidding, take care of Bosnia for you (a "civil war" that the UN didn't approve either.... but not a complaint from the EU in that case). Let me say it again, Mark... if I saw you and David Chalk as presenting balanced views, rather than the constant America-bashing, I wouldn't say a word back at you. I'm sure things will change once your next elections are out of the way and the next president (whatever their political colour) changes tack. The Neo-cons have had their day, others will have theirs.
What are you going to do if the Democrats get in? The rest of the world might breath a collective sigh of relief, which may drown out your gnashing of teeth ;) What do you think is going to happen when Bush is gone, Mark? Do you think the Arabs will fold up their tents and return to their peaceful ways? Do you think the Europeans are going to start managing problems instead of just talking about them?

Europe will wait for the next election and pray for a Democrat who will do their bidding in the hope of "raising the popularity polls in Europe." The Dem's will be praying between now and the election that there is not another big attack in the US because deep down most people in the US and the world know that when it's time for the grownups to take action, only a Republican is going to do it.

Could be though that our liberal educators and our press and our Hollywood have convinced enough of the younger generation that we can just make friends with Islam, even if they're cutting our thoats. The problem is that if that's true, we're not going to be there to pull your coals out of the fire this time, Mark. You need to be praying for a Republican, not a Hillary Clinton or an Al Gore. ;)

Mike

David Orange
01-14-2007, 12:49 AM
David Orange wrote:
"I don't remember what Franks said, but it looks to me like Shinseki had it dead on. A typical Bush tactic to fire (or smear) those who tell the truth."

Mike:
I'm going to stop right here. You don't know what you're talking about, once again. Franks listed himself and all the generals that wanted a small, rapid force. You're picking and choosing your facts in a rather clueless way.

Mmmm....no. It looks like Shinseki was 100% correct and we have today what he said we would have. And if Franks said we could do it with a small force, he was wrong. But why did Cheney change his tune? He said at the end of Gulf War I that it would be a fool's errand to invade Baghdad. We'd have to end up rebuilding their government, which is not what we're about. We'd be stuck in a bloody quagmire, etc. Franks covered his ass, it looks like to me. And he kept his job. Shinseki told the truth and got canned for saying we needed more troops.

After Bush flipper-floppered (long after more troops could help), Abizaid said we didn't need more troops. And where is he now? OUT. That's the shame of being an honorable, intelligent military man: a self-serving political bully can bring you down in a heartbeat.


David Orange wrote:
"I think it's far more insulting to put a chickenhawk in charge of their lives, send them into Iraq without sufficient armor, renege on the limits of their time in combat, send them back before their time is due, and all the other indignities Bumbya has heaped upon them."

Mike:
You may have missed a few of the fairly analytical dissertations about the characters of people who make this "chickenhawk" charge.

"The people" who make the "chickenhawk charge"???

I don't know who "they" are. I'm the one who said it. And I don't need to read any critiques of anyone's character when I can see Bush's character right in front of my eyes, every day for the past seven years. He's a chickenhawk. He got out of Viet Nam, shirked his duty in the Air Guard, never put himself in harm's way, but now sends other people to die for NOTHING but his own cowboy ego.

Again, I say that Afghanistan was on the right track, but he abandoned that job half done and the Taliban are taking over there again.

It's pure personal attack.

He's a terrible leader who sends others to do what he wormed his way out of doing. That is the definition of "chickenhawk."

Where did you serve?

You quoted in another thread that "If one isn't a socialist at 20 he has no heart. If he's still a socialist at 30, he has no head."

Well, similarly, if you were born in 1945 and didn't go to Viet Nam, you had no patriotism. If you were born in 1955 and did go, you just weren't paying attention to what was going on in the world.

I was on a military track from birth until 17. My father was on carriers in the Korean conflict and I aimed to be a fighter pilot my whole life. I was up for an appointment to the Air Force Academy but I backed out because I had seen too much crookedness in the way our sorry leaders were handling Viet Nam. It had turned into a big testing field for high-tech weaponry, an endless conflict for conflict's sake, mismanaged by politicians and bean counters who didn't give a damn about a soldier's life, much less his lousy arm, leg or face. And the Viet Namese people? The sure didn't give a damn about them. We were supposedly there to "save" them, but by 1972 even a teenager could see that that was not what was happening over there.

I gave up my chance to fly the finest aircraft known to man. I put myself at risk for the draft, which was still going and for which I had registered. Unlike Bush, who got to fly great jets, got paid and probably still gets verterans' benefits despite not showing up for duty and being declared unfit to fly, I wouldn't serve that system at all. While Viet Nam was winding down and was finished by the time I would have been a military pilot, I didn't trust them not to send me into some similar debacle for some other politician's glory at the cost of innocent blood.

Maybe we should bring up the point that Al Gore tried to prevent the votes of servicemen from counting in the 2000 election because he knew that most military votes are Republican....

You mean the allegation, the political Rovian smear?

for the simple reason that the percentage of Dem's and libs who serve in the military is very small. They complain... but they don't serve in meaningful numbers.

Well, Gore did. Kerry did.

Who didn't? Rove. Cheney. Limbaugh. Wolfowitz. Gingrich.

It's an impressive list, all the cons and neo-cons who wormed their way out of service during Viet Nam although they whole-heartedly supported sending other people and who, decades later, engineered the disastrous fiasco in Iraq: in other words, "chickenhawks." ;)

David

David Orange
01-14-2007, 12:56 AM
The ISG was just one committee.... just because it was the one the liberal media wanted to hear, doesn't mean there wasn't other input.

Mmmmm.....that was put together by Bush's daddy--former head of the CIA, former War President, GHW Bush. There wasn't much "liberal" about that group. James Baker???? Come off it.

Notice that on the ISG there was not one single military person. Do you really want a war that is controlled by civilians?

You mean like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove and Rice????
How would a war controlled by intelligent, honest civilians be worse than one controlled by scheming chickenhawks???

But wait.... what do you care so much about what the US and Bush do? Isn't your country something of a mess in terms of crime and employment? Go worry about the UK for a change.

Yeah, Mike, looks like the Brits are pulling out to take care of their real business at home. They were our biggest allies in the fiasco in Iraq and they've had enough of Bush's bumbling. Whether the US pulls out now or in ten years, Islamic radicals are going to run that country as soon as we leave. That's the whole point about Al Maliki. He's working with Al Sadr, he's got a grip on the death squads and he is fine with what they are doing. Better we should all wake up to the truth of what's really happening in that hellhole now before we waste more lives and money on something we should never have started.

David

David Orange
01-14-2007, 01:05 AM
I don't seem to recall Saddam agreeing to starve his people. Sure, he played his stupid macho poker-game of "do-I-have-wmds-or-don't-I (and thus, he's indirectly responsible)," but he didn't decide to bomb his own infrastructure and embargo needed supplies.

His army didn't starve for food, uniforms, vehicles or weapons. Saddam took what should have gone to the people and while those children were starving, he built huge palaces for himself and his sons. And yet, incredibly, the Iraqi people were better off with him in power than they are in the boiling hell of the tribal civil war that rules that country now.

Yeah, Hussein was partly responsible: but your logic of Hussein being responsible falls in line with blaming a torture-victim for all the punishment he gets, because he's being so stubborn.

Saddam never suffered in all that time. He never missed a meal or a comfort of any kind or any thing he wanted under the sanctions.

When do the main perpetrators of this genocide get called into account? :mad: IMO, it's been past-due for over a decade.

Well, he was called to account for it a couple of weeks ago and his sons got it a couple of years ago. But the whole world would have been better off if we had left Iraq alone and finished our job in Afghanistan.

Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech wasn't only a lie concerning Iraq: it marked "Mission Abandoned" in the only country that really did have a direct role in 9/11. Other than Saudi Arabia, but they are close, personal friends of the Bush's. Oh, and Bin Laden, but his family and the Bush family have a long history of lucrative business together.

So we abandoned Afghanistan again and we turned Iraq into a hell on earth, not only for the Iraqis, but for our entire nation and certainly for the soldiers over there trying to serve our nation.

David

Guilty Spark
01-14-2007, 01:54 AM
Great post David
Really liked this part.
Donald Rumsfeld stupidly said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have."

How stupid is that? Would you go to dinner with the money you happen to have in your pocket, or would you make sure you had enough before you went into the restaurant? Would you buy a million-dollar house with the income you happen to be making or would you either buy a cheaper house or get a bigger income?

In speaking with a lot of American soldiers many of them are unhappy. Lots are being kept way past their due date to leave. A black hawk pilot friend of mine was supposed to be out he said over a year ago. Lots of them believe in the very near future the US military is going to have serious morale problems on their hands which will effect recruiting. Soldiers won't resign creating a knowledge and skill gap and the US will have to lower their recruiting standards more and more to get people to join.

Canada, who arguably has the worst physical fitness standards in NATO, has lowered our already ridiculous physical fitness standards for new recruits.

Neil Mick wrote:
I don't seem to recall Saddam agreeing to starve his people. Sure, he played his stupid macho poker-game of "do-I-have-wmds-or-don't-I (and thus, he's indirectly responsible)," but he didn't decide to bomb his own infrastructure and embargo needed supplies.
Neil I don't even know how to begin to argue this.

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 02:01 AM
His army didn't starve for food, uniforms, vehicles or weapons. Saddam took what should have gone to the people and while those children were starving, he built huge palaces for himself and his sons.

And, they were starving, because of the Sanctions.

Look, granted that Hussein was a horrible megalomanic, and partly culpable.

But only partly. For murdering Iraqi children, the US and GB also need to take a "bow."

And yet, incredibly, the Iraqi people were better off with him in power than they are in the boiling hell of the tribal civil war that rules that country now.

True enough. Hussein said it pretty succinctly, didn't he? before the trapdoor fell out from under him, in response to one of his executioners telling him to go to hell..."Iraq IS hell."

Saddam never suffered in all that time. He never missed a meal or a comfort of any kind or any thing he wanted under the sanctions.

Yeah, OK, he was bad. Got that. Roger.

Look, I sat and watched (in a public discussion) a video of Hussein's thugs beating Shi'ites who dared to oppose him in the civil war (remember that one? The one where GHW Bush extolled the Iraqi ppl to "rise up" against Hussein? And then we let the ensuing bloodbath against the Shi'ites go unhindered, as we let Hussein's helicopters fly freely, to stifle the uprising...or, don't we share any of the responsibility for that, either?? :dead: )

It was a hard video to watch.

So yeah, I get it. Hussein was brutal. But, he didn't instigate the Sanctions, and no amount of your saying that "Hussein is bad bad bad" will change that fact.

Well, he was called to account for it a couple of weeks ago and his sons got it a couple of years ago.

While the other world-actors that let it go by when it happened; and THEN were shocked! SHOCKED! to hear that he murdered his own ppl, proceeded to bomb their infrastucture and then starve the Iraqi's...they get to walk, free.

But the whole world would have been better off if we had left Iraq alone and finished our job in Afghanistan.

The whole world would have been better off if we had left Iraq alone and treated Afghanistan as a matter of international law, instead of the Wild West.

Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech wasn't only a lie concerning Iraq: it marked "Mission Abandoned" in the only country that really did have a direct role in 9/11. Other than Saudi Arabia, but they are close, personal friends of the Bush's. Oh, and Bin Laden, but his family and the Bush family have a long history of lucrative business together.

So we abandoned Afghanistan again and we turned Iraq into a hell on earth, not only for the Iraqis, but for our entire nation and certainly for the soldiers over there trying to serve our nation.

David

See, the thing about Afghanistan that really bothers me is not that we "left our mission behind:" it's all symbolized in the debacle of Guantanamo. And, you can't really talk about the war in Afghanistan without talking about Concentration Camp X-Ray (which is essentially what it is).

It is estimated that 91% of the ppl there are innocent. And why? Because they were picked up in mass street arrests, and sweeps, in Afghanistan and Pakistan...some of them from a bounty.

In 2002, a caravan of mixed Afghan and Taliban prisoners were put by N. Alliance fighters (under the supervision of US forces) in big metal crates, and trucked them out to the desert, where they had to endure 5 days of overcrowding with no water, no ventilation. When some of them cried out for air, the guards shot holes into the containers, killing some of the prisoners.

After 5 days, the surviving prisoners were let out, and some were processed onto Gitmo.

This is the sort of legacy we leave behind when we go on "missions," like Afghanistan. Atrocities happen, they disappear into media black-holes (except for the occasional hiccup, such as May Lai, in Vietnam) or it fades from the US memory.

David Orange
01-14-2007, 02:02 AM
Great post David

Well, it's sincere if nothing else.

In speaking with a lot of American soldiers many of them are unhappy. Lots are being kept way past their due date to leave. A black hawk pilot friend of mine was supposed to be out he said over a year ago.

Bush has CHEATED these people who volunteered to serve their country, only to find that they are serving Dubya's huge, cowboy ego. It is WRONG and I hate it.

Lots of them believe in the very near future the US military is going to have serious morale problems on their hands which will effect recruiting. Soldiers won't resign creating a knowledge and skill gap and the US will have to lower their recruiting standards more and more to get people to join.

That or they will simply reinstate the draft. I often worry that that is a major part of Bush's real strategy: to damage our military so deeply that the draft will be brought back. We were doing very well with an all-volunteer force. We were getting very intelligent and highly motivated people. The weak side of that is that once you join, any strutting-monkey politician can decide to "sacrifice" your life for his personal glory.

Now we're taking many more high school dropouts with mental deficiencies and discipline problems. They cost more to train and take more effort to control and command and they will be more likely to commit atrocities.

I'm afraid I do feel a draft.

David

David Orange
01-14-2007, 02:08 AM
I sat and watched (in a public discussion) a video of Hussein's thugs beating Shi'ites who dared to oppose him in the civil war (remember that one? The one where GHW Bush extolled the Iraqi ppl to "rise up" against Hussein? And then we let the ensuing bloodbath against the Shi'ites go unhindered, as we let Hussein's helicopters fly freely, to stifle the uprising...or, don't we share any of the responsibility for that, either?? :dead: )

I'm afraid our nation will suffer very badly for decades to come because we had the very, very bad judgment to trust the George Bushes.

Hussein was brutal. But, he didn't instigate the Sanctions, and no amount of your saying that "Hussein is bad bad bad" will change that fact.

My point is that, even with the Sanctions, there was plenty of money to feed the children. It was purely Saddam's choice to spend the available money on palaces and weapons and paying Palestinian suicide bombers instead of feeding his own people. The Sanctions didn't kill anyone. Saddam did.

David

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 02:11 AM
That or they will simply reinstate the draft. I often worry that that is a major part of Bush's real strategy: to damage our military so deeply that the draft will be brought back. We were doing very well with an all-volunteer force.

Bush? Have a strategy...? :freaky: Where? ;)

Now we're taking many more high school dropouts with mental deficiencies and discipline problems. They cost more to train and take more effort to control and command p/quote]

yes, true enough.

[quote]and they will be more likely to commit atrocities.

huh?? :freaky:

I'm afraid I do feel a draft.

David

True enough, but personally I think that the draft will return more as a desperate attempt by the Army to bolster its ranks, rather than as scheming, pre-planned tactic.

But of course, it's always a bad idea to "misunderestimate" Bush. So, your fears may be well-founded.

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 02:16 AM
paying Palestinian suicide bombers instead of feeding his own people.

Sorry, wrong.

Hussein did not pay $$ out to Palestinian suicide bombers.

He offered recompensation to the families of suicide bombers.

Big difference (I know, I know...you don't see it that way...but I do. And I'll be happy to discuss it at length.

But I must add, in your continual attempts to demonize an admittedly bad man...that as early as 1993, he indicated that he'd be willing to recognize the state of Israel).

The Sanctions didn't kill anyone. Saddam did.

David

How morally convenient, to think so. Sure let's us off the hook, right?

The money Hussein took could not have fed all of Iraq. And so, Hussein is only partly to blame.

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 09:03 AM
Mmmm....no. It looks like Shinseki was 100% correct and we have today what he said we would have. And if Franks said we could do it with a small force, he was wrong. But why did Cheney ..........Ah, I see the problem. You simply hate America. Notice in yours and Neil's and Grant's and Mark's et al posts that there is not one single comment about other contributions to "what went wrong". Neil excuses everything Saddam and all Arabs do and blames it on the US. You solely blame Bush and the US (trust me, I don't play this silly game where we bash Bush and pretend we're not bashing the US )..... where have you blamed the Iraqi government for duplicity, lack of ability, etc.,? Where have you blamed Iran's interference? Syria's? The EU's duplicity? Russia's? China's. Liberals at home hindering the war every way they can? All those people have had a hand, yet you don't mention a single one of those factors. Nor does Neil. You're purely focused on hating the US

If you step back and look at it, pretending Bush is the only person who has had an input or an effect on the war isn't just partisan.... it's moronic. Try to imagine that fanatical type of dissertation while sitting with a group of people who are actually knowledgeable about history, military, intelligence operations, etc. No one would even listen to this tripe..... so who is it you think you're talking to? A bunch of Aikido beginners like the one you hold thrall in your class?

Do you think you are a balanced person?

MIke

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 03:18 PM
Ah, I see the problem. You simply hate America.

Ah, I see the problem. Your limited imagination can only surmise that criticism of the US Gov't, means that we hate America.

Gosh...now isn't THAT a new twist...never saw THAT one, before... :rolleyes:

Neil excuses everything Saddam and all Arabs do and blames it on the US.

Truth...here

Mikey's take on the truth... (*looking thru telescope, focusing on Betelguese*)...here

Wrong, Mike. It's one thing to say that Hussein was a terrible ruler...no question on that.

Quite another to say that everything he did, from dawn to dusk, was ALL bad, for his ppl.

During Hussein's reign, there were no suicide bombers.
During Hussein's reign, Iraqi's were considered one of the more highly educated ppl in the MidEast.
During Hussein's reign, there were ALSO terrible tortures, wrongful imprisonments, and fiat ruled by fear.

It's nice to sugarcoat history to your liking, and do so at your leisure; but please...stop putting words in my mouth.

It only makes your posts look more like the the dittohead splutter of Rush Limbaugh, than they already are.

where have you blamed the Iraqi government for duplicity, lack of ability, etc.,?

AHahahahahaha! Blame a puppet, for not being "puppet-like," enough?

Where have you blamed Iran's interference? Syria's? The EU's duplicity? Russia's? China's.

Funny, but I seem to remember Russia, China, France, et al: telling the US NOT to create the stupid, idiotic and illegal move to invade.

Guess you must be talking about some other, alternative, Mike-Sigman-like reality. :crazy:

Liberals at home hindering the war every way they can?

Oh, yeah...it's all the Liberal's fault....riiiight! :drool:

Blame EVERYONE, but the US.

You're purely focused on hating the US

I really pity you, Mike. You actually believe this tripe. You probably harbor a belief somewhere that we could have won the Vietnam War, if we'd only have hung on, long enough. :rolleyes:

If you step back and look at it, pretending Bush is the only person who has had an input or an effect on the war isn't just partisan.... it's moronic.

Funny, but I seem to recall that now even Republican's are calling this "surge" a bad idea. Apparently only Bush and about 6 other guys think it isn't.

But right, it's all everyone else's fault..... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Do you think you are a balanced person?

MIke

I'd ask the same question of you, Mike: but I (and the readers here) already know the answer to THAT one... :hypno:

David Orange
01-14-2007, 03:33 PM
Bush? Have a strategy...? :freaky: Where? ;)

He may be simple, but so is his strategy: serve the super wealthy and he will always be taken care of.

David Orange
01-14-2007, 03:36 PM
Sorry, wrong.

Hussein did not pay $$ out to Palestinian suicide bombers.

He offered recompensation to the families of suicide bombers.

Same difference. It enhances the glory of their "martyrdom". But he did send something like $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 per.

The money Hussein took could not have fed all of Iraq.

Well, obviously, it didn't have to. But it sure would have taken care of all the children supposedly starved to death "by the Sanctions."

David

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 03:45 PM
Funny, but I seem to remember Russia, China, France, et al: telling the US NOT to create the stupid, idiotic and illegal move to invade.Precisely.... not only do you focus on Bush and America being the bad guys, but you make excuses for never mentioning Iran, Iraqi duplicity, EU duplicity, Syria and so on..... your post tries to deflect those problems like they are somehow silly. Probably mentioning Al Qaeda is *silly* to you, also.

But the interesting thing in your comment above is that you're so focused on hating the US that you completely forgot that Russia, China, France, et al, were caught taking bribes from Hussein. You're happy for the collusion and think it's a good thing, obviously, since they are all enemies of the US.

Oh, and I see Hugo Chavez, the man you profess to admire, has become a further embarrassment to the libs who support him. You make your own bed, Neil.

Mike

David Orange
01-14-2007, 04:24 PM
Ah, I see the problem. You simply hate America.

Mike, Mike, Mike. That's the calling card of the real loser. It shows you have no argument, whatsoever. I'll just remind you of Cheney's famous advice to his critic.

Notice in yours and Neil's and Grant's and Mark's et al posts that there is not one single comment about other contributions to "what went wrong".

You mean, all those things that people warned Bush would happen if he invaded Iraq? I mention those. I say "Bush was warned by better and smarter people than himself that those things would happen if he invaded Iraq." And those would be the people he smeared and/or fired.

Neil excuses everything Saddam and all Arabs do and blames it on the US. You solely blame Bush and the US (trust me, I don't play this silly game where we bash Bush and pretend we're not bashing the US ).....

Mike, don't make yourself into a real dunce. I solely blame Bush. "The US" is all those people who warned Bush not to ramrod his invasion through. It is ALL Bush's fault.

But you say by "bashing" Bush, I'm really bashing the US. So when you bash Clinton, you're really bashing the US. So Mike Sigman hates the US. You've made that clear.

where have you blamed the Iraqi government for duplicity, lack of ability, etc.,?

Read the thread, Mike. In my first post, I called on Bush to make his puppet prove that he will cooperate before we send more troops. In other posts I have stated that Al Maliki works hand-in-glove with the death squads. Al Sadr is his supporter and Al Maliki likes the way things are going. Haven't you read those posts where I clearly said that?

But who really CHOSE that "government"? Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice. They had a huge say in stacking that government and its ministries and they are responsible for the way those crooked ministers stole all the money provided for reconstruction. But I guess that's why Cheney said right after Gulf War I that we didn't want to be responsible for having to create a new government for that country. He must be getting some kickbacks this time around.

Where have you blamed Iran's interference? Syria's? The EU's duplicity? Russia's? China's.

Who did not know those things would happen? EVERYONE KNEW THEY WOULD HAPPEN and that those were very large factors in WHY an invasion of Iraq would be utter stupidity.

Liberals at home hindering the war every way they can? All those people have had a hand, yet you don't mention a single one of those factors. Nor does Neil. You're purely focused on hating the US

Again, Mike: take Cheney's advice. Bush's conduct of that war needs no outside hindrance. As long as he runs it, it's screwed.

If you step back and look at it, pretending Bush is the only person who has had an input or an effect on the war isn't just partisan.... it's moronic.

Well, of course it isn't absolutely JUST Bush. It's Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Rove and maybe five or six other people at the center. Almost everyone else was "persuaded" by that cabal to support the war. Almost no one else had any real input and almost everyone who opposed it was either seriously and quite effectively smeared or fired from their jobs.

But the truth is, BUSH is the real "pilot" of the whole effort. Wolfowitz could never have done it without Bush's hillbilly charm and simple straightforwardness. Only he had the kind of psychopathic lack of conscience needed to lie so blatantly and evilly with such homespun likeableness. Only he had the lack of shame to call good reasoning "fuzzy math" and to present in its place such wildly ridiculous numbers of cost, time and casualties that only the blind or blindly partisan would ever have believed them.

Try to imagine that fanatical type of dissertation while sitting with a group of people who are actually knowledgeable about history, military, intelligence operations, etc. No one would even listen to this tripe.....

Really? Shinseki would agree. Abizaid would agree. I know Bill Clinton would agree and what you and I put together know about those subjects would not be a drop in his bucket. 70% of America would agree with me now.

Do you think you are a balanced person?

That's a laughable question coming from you, Mike.

David

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 05:18 PM
Read your own post, David. You're an absolute ditz. Everything that has happened is the fault of Bush? There is no other fault in the world but Bush and the US? All the Arab attacks in Darfur, India, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim.... all of those things are the fault of Bush (even though they started decades before Bush was ever elected). What about World War II.... there are actually Leftists like you who claim World War II was solely the fault of the US. Complete ditz's.

Bush was "warned", eh? He was "warned" that the tax cuts would bankrupt the US... but just the opposite has happened (libs don't mention that at all nowadays, but think back to the headlines just a few years ago). "Tens of thousands of US soldiers will die if we take action in the Middle East".... it didn't happen, even though we were "warned" by people like Neil. "The Arab countries will rise up against us".... it didn't happen; why not?. "Afghanistan will be a quagmire like Vietnam"... it didn't happen, despite hand-wringing by the Left. It's bad enough that you can't admit any errors, but it gets silly when you "blame it all on Bush". You're a dutiful follower of Leftist propaganda, David. Do you really think all the bad news in the world suddenly turned on when Bush got elected pres?

BTW.... the Left was quiet for exactly one week after 9-11.... then some of the Left started claiming that 9-11 was the fault of the US and the rest of the Left never denied it. If you don't think the Left is anti-US, you're kidding yourself, David. You're mostly the creatures of a too-soft generation, raised by a generation that had to fight and which mistakenly coddled its young. That's why civilizations cycle though, just like wealth.

There's a good saying about wealth... it lasts 3 generations. Grandpa works hard and makes it; he coddles his son; his coddled son pampers grandson who squanders it because he never really worked hard for anything. That's the same thing happening to the coddled Left and the parasites who jump on board their bandwagon.

Luckily, a couple of things are going to work in our favor. First of all, it looks like we've got the Arabs getting ready to fight each other all over the Middle East. That will occupy them as well as the US being in Iraq, so mission accomplished as far as I am concerned. Secondly, the next big attack on the US will undoubtedly be on a large metropolitan city that (currently) votes solidly Left. They can blame it on Bush all they want, but Bush doesn't make bombs in the basement of the White House. You sow what you reap. :)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike

Guilty Spark
01-14-2007, 06:15 PM
Ah, I see the problem. You simply hate America. Notice in yours and Neil's and Grant's and Mark's et al posts that there is not one single comment about other contributions to "what went wrong"

I'm sitting on the Fence Mike.
I believe in our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think we'll achieve greater good being there. I think Hussein and Osama are monsters and the world is a better place without them and their terrorist cronies. I volunteered to come here and I'll volunteer to come back.

That said Bush clearly was dishonest in his methods of getting the US to go to war with Iraq, which I don't agree with and think was very wrong.
If you're going to send people to fight and die give them an honest no BS reason.


During Hussein's reign, there were no suicide bombers.
During Hussein's reign, Iraqi's were considered one of the more highly educated ppl in the MidEast.
During Hussein's reign, there were ALSO terrible tortures, wrongful imprisonments, and fiat ruled by fear.
There were also starving people while he took a crap on solid gold toilet seats.
People were raped and thrown from airplanes.
Families we're torn apart by dogs in soccer stadiums.
People were buried alive.

I realize Neil that you do agree Saddam did terrible stuff but you're coming across like it wasn't reeeeeally that bad.

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 06:49 PM
Same difference. It enhances the glory of their "martyrdom". But he did send something like $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 per.

No, it isn't. Suicide bombers receive none of the money. And, whether or not it "enhances the glory of their martyrdom," is impossible to say, as neither you nor I are Palestinian, and we cannot objectively state what effect it has.

Remember, at the time, the IDF was announcing that suicide bombers' families would be punished. Perhaps this was Hussein's PR move on the Palestinian's, while making Israel look bad.

But to say that he was giving cash to suicide bombers is being disingnuous. The bombers never saw the money.

Well, obviously, it didn't have to. But it sure would have taken care of all the children supposedly starved to death "by the Sanctions."

David

No, wrong. The money would not have taken care of "all" the children starved to death.

Last I looked, I think that the figure was 15%, that Hussein skimmed off the top. But whatever it was, it was nowhere near 100%...as you make it out to be (and thereby, attempt to lift the blame from the ppl who decided what to Sanction).

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 06:51 PM
There were also starving people while he took a crap on solid gold toilet seats.
People were raped and thrown from airplanes.
Families we're torn apart by dogs in soccer stadiums.
People were buried alive.

Yep. All true. Hussein was a b#$tard, no question.

I realize Neil that you do agree Saddam did terrible stuff but you're coming across like it wasn't reeeeeally that bad.

Wrong. I'm saying that it is revisionism to claim that Hussein was 100% ANYTHING. To claim that he was 100% bad, end of story, is to look at the world, in tones of black and white.

The world is a lot more complex than that.

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 06:59 PM
Precisely.... not only do you focus on Bush and America being the bad guys, but you make excuses for never mentioning Iran, Iraqi duplicity, EU duplicity, Syria and so on..... your post tries to deflect those problems like they are somehow silly.

When we talk about Russia invading Afghanistan and getting the tar beaten out of it: should I also mention how it was sucked into that war by the US with every passing breath, as well? Or should I put the blame for the invasion squarely where it belongs, and count in the US involvement, as a "contribution?"

If I were you, of course: it would be ALL Russia's fault. No, let's never mention the US gov't: they NEVER do wrong. :rolleyes:

Probably mentioning Al Qaeda is *silly* to you, also.

In the context of invading Iraq...? Well...duh!

But the interesting thing in your comment above is that you're so focused on hating the US

But the interesting thing about your strawmen is that you're so focused on labelling ppl who disagree with you, as US-haters, that you don't really have any other tools, in your debating toolbox.

David's right: you slander and misrepresent, because that's all you really have.

that you completely forgot that Russia, China, France, et al, were caught taking bribes from Hussein.

In light of the invasion...I hardly see where that matters.

You're happy for the collusion and think it's a good thing,

You're happy putting words in my mouth...

obviously, since they are all enemies of the US.

obviously, since your posts suggest a lack of imagination, and a tendency to go for slander and slur, rather than a respectful and lively debate.

Oh, and I see Hugo Chavez, the man you profess to admire, has become a further embarrassment to the libs who support him. You make your own bed, Neil.

"Embarassment?" :confused: :confused: Huh? As a parting shot, your comments need work, Mike. That one went soaring over my head.

Guilty Spark
01-14-2007, 07:05 PM
But to say that he was giving cash to suicide bombers is being disingnuous. The bombers never saw the money.

Semantics, no?
He was paying someone to kill random people.

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 07:09 PM
Semantics, no?
He was paying someone to kill random people.

No, NOT semantics. You have to look at it in the light of what he was trying to accomplish.

Conservatives like to claim that he was fostering the spread of suicide bombers. If this were so, then how come we hear no public announcements of him exhorting more suicide bombings?

No, the payments were a PR stunt, to increase his standing in the Palestinian community.

He was NOT "paying someone to kill random ppl." He was paying death benefits to families (some of whom didn't even know the relative WAS a suicide bomber).

So what effect does this have? It makes Hussein look good in the eyes of average Palestinian's, and it makes the IDF look bad, because at the time they were threatening relatives with imprisonment.

P.S. Finally, Grant, remember one thing (and I think even Amir Krause would agree with me, here): the Middle East is a complicated place. Evil men sometimes do good things, and good ppl sometimes do evil things. It's better to look at the whole mess in shades of gray, rather than try to paint the situation in tones of black and white.

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 07:20 PM
Well, obviously, it didn't have to. But it sure would have taken care of all the children supposedly starved to death "by the Sanctions."

David

Oil for Food Facts (http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/)

Myth: Saddam Hussein's regime raised over $21.3 billion in illicit revenue by subverting the Oil-for-Food Program (OFFP).

Fact: This figure was initially provided on November 15, 2004 at a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations that is conducting one of the five congressional inquiries into the OFFP. The Subcommittee distributed a chart that showed that while Iraq was under UN Sanctions, between 1991 - 2003, the Saddam Hussein regime obtained illicit revenues of $21.3 billion. The chart clearly indicates that the OFFP was responsible for a small share of this total and that most of the illicit revenue came from other sources.

Since then, the $21.3 billion figure has been used inaccurately by Members of Congress, the media, and even President Bush. All have said at various times that it represents what the Hussein regime obtained by circumventing the OFFP. Most notably, Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN), who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations, has used the figure incorrectly multiple times, without being challenged. In his December 1, 2004, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Sen. Coleman wrote, "At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion through abuses of the Oil-for-Food Program and UN sanctions." Yet Sen. Coleman has linked the entire $21 billion number to Oil-for-Food during various interviews with FOX News, CNN, and CNBC.

Attributing the whole $21.3 billion to circumvention of the OFFP is incorrect on its face. First, the OFFP did not begin until 1996, fully 5 years after the beginning of sanctions on Iraq. Second, the same chart used by the Subcommittee to graphically represent the number shows that only $6.5 billion was related to the OFFP, as only three of the categories in the chart can be directly attributed to the OFFP. They are:

Kickbacks on Humanitarian goods-- $4.4 billion
Oil surcharges-- $241 million
Substandard Goods--$2.1 billion

The other categories in the chart, including oil smuggling, fall outside the purview of the Office of the Iraq Program, the UN entity that administered the OFFP. Of particular note is the $13.6 billion the chart attributes to oil smuggling. There has been a wide misperception that the UN was in charge of policing for the regime's oil smuggling. This is incorrect. The responsibility for preventing smuggling into and from Iraq rested with Member States, specifically with the Multinational Interception Force, mandated by the Security Council in 1991 and led by and predominantly made up of the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy. Additionally, the category the subcommittee calls "substandard goods" is a new category that has not been included in previous estimates of Saddam's illicit revenue, and might warrant further scrutiny.

Furthermore, the recent report issued by the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer notes that nearly of the illicit revenue (or $8 billion) obtained by the Hussein regime during the sanctions period came from illegal trading with its neighbors (see chart). A third source, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), reached the same conclusion. The GAO, in its "Observations on the Oil for Food Program" report highlights (submitted as testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 7, 2004), noted that the 661 Committee did not have oversight of the majority of missing revenues ($5.7 billion) that were attributed to smuggling. Instead, the GAO found that investigations concerning 661 Committee responsibility should focus on the remaining $4.4 billion attributable to kickbacks on humanitarian aid contracts and surcharges on oil sales.

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 07:47 PM
Why.... of course! Saddam was a good guy and no Iraqi children or adults suffered under him. In fact, there WAS no suffering in Iraq until George W. Bush was elected president. In an earlier life, Bush was also guilty of forcing the "Palestinian Arabs" to exhort Hitler to kill more Jews. Prior to that, Bush was responsible for the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire, forcing the Arabs to side with Germany, and many other atrocities. :crazy:

MIke

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 07:52 PM
And I LOVE the reference Neil gives for "Oil for Food Facts" which is the UN's report that had to get the OK from Kofi Annan who was and still is suspected of being in the bribery chain with Saddam... a "man he can do business with". Perfect source. The UN is the largest, corrupt organization on the planet. Yet libs say not a word because corruption is OK if you're on the same sides. ;)

Mike

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 08:47 PM
Why...of course! Saddam was (blah blah blah blah blah blah)...*insert words in mouth, here* (blah blah) :crazy:

MIke

:rolleyes:

And I LOVE the reference Neil gives (which I do not provide, as it is much safer to sling mud, than provide a positive contribution to debate) because I'm a self appointed authority demagogue...blah blah from Kofi Annan who (*insert unprovable and specious claim, here*)...Perfect source (since I don't provide any). The UN blah blah corrupt organization blah blah planet. Blah blah eveel libs blah blah blather splutter ;)

Mike

David Orange
01-14-2007, 10:10 PM
Everything that has happened is the fault of Bush? There is no other fault in the world but Bush and the US?

No, Mike. Not Bush and the US: JUST BUSH. Bush has lied and manipulated and led his little cabal of neocon chickenhawks for the greater good of Halliburton. None of it would have been possible without Bush. But the US??? Misled and manipulated by Bush's knowing and willful lies.

All the Arab attacks in Darfur, India, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim.... all of those things are the fault of Bush (even though they started decades before Bush was ever elected).

And they had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Bush might as well have attacked Aruba as Iraq. But he didn't hate the leader of Aruba on a personal basis and Aruba has no oil.

What about World War II.... there are actually Leftists like you who claim World War II was solely the fault of the US. Complete ditz's.

Completely irrelevant. I said earlier that WWII was necessary while Iraq was totally elective and personal.

You're a dutiful follower of Leftist propaganda, David. Do you really think all the bad news in the world suddenly turned on when Bush got elected pres?

Blow it, Mike. Anything you don't agree with is "leftist" or "liberal". Why not get creative and call people Armenians or something? It's equally meaningless. Funny that 70% or more of Americans agree with me on this.

If you don't think the Left is anti-US, you're kidding yourself, David.

And the Armenians, too. We're all Branch Davidian Amish. Why don't you get a label maker and stick labels on everything in the US? What you say is just noise when it goes as far as you've gone.

There's a good saying about wealth... it lasts 3 generations. Grandpa works hard and makes it; he coddles his son; his coddled son pampers grandson who squanders it because he never really worked hard for anything. That's the same thing happening to the coddled Left and the parasites who jump on board their bandwagon.

Interesting. Three generations is also how long the Okies lived on the land the took from the Indians before it turned to dust. The Indians had lived there for hundreds of years in a perpetual cycle of cooperation with the land. The Okies killed them and in three generations, they'd killed the land. The Republicans got the government 12 years ago and they've murdered their own movement just that quickly.

Luckily, a couple of things are going to work in our favor. First of all, it looks like we've got the Arabs getting ready to fight each other all over the Middle East. That will occupy them as well as the US being in Iraq, so mission accomplished as far as I am concerned.

Sounds psychopathic, Mike. Did you torture small animals when you were a kid? You know Bush did, don't you? Honestly, do you share that with him? I grew up with a kid who was an evil genius at that kind of thing. He murdered frogs in elaborate, inventive ways. He would tie a rabbit to a post and let a dog on it. He buried cats up to the neck and ran over them with a lawn mower.

All I read about with Bush was that he stuck fire crackers up frogs' butts and blew them up. Maybe shot them with bb guns. He has no sympathy or sense of anyone's or anything's suffering except his own. And he has made sure not to suffer. But a lot of other people suffer because of him.

the next big attack on the US will undoubtedly be on a large metropolitan city that (currently) votes solidly Left. They can blame it on Bush all they want, but Bush doesn't make bombs in the basement of the White House. You sow what you reap. :)

If that's the case, Bush is going to be reaping in hell. And what do you mean he doesn't make bombs? The US is the world's leader in making as well as selling explosives and projectiles as well as their launchers.

But why do you think the next terrorist strike (which will probably hit well before Bush leaves office) will hit a non-psychopath city? Are you saying our hyper-vigilant Homeland Security doesn't guard those cities? Or that Bush will let them through? What do you really mean?

David

David Orange
01-14-2007, 10:17 PM
Suicide bombers receive none of the money. And, whether or not it "enhances the glory of their martyrdom," is impossible to say, as neither you nor I are Palestinian, and we cannot objectively state what effect it has.

It's a tribal society. To not only die while killing a Jew, but to know that the President of a mighty country will give your family a huge bonus after you die would be quite a nice incentive in that society. Knowing that their family would get $10,000 to $25,000 in cash would certainly comfort the prospective bomber.

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 10:19 PM
Far out, David. I hope none of the foam got on your shirt.

Regards,

Mike

David Orange
01-14-2007, 10:23 PM
...there WAS no suffering in Iraq until George W. Bush was elected president. In an earlier life, Bush was also guilty of forcing the "Palestinian Arabs" to exhort Hitler to kill more Jews. Prior to that, Bush was responsible for the atrocities of the Ottoman Empire, forcing the Arabs to side with Germany, and many other atrocities. :crazy:

Cute. But the fact is, Bush was the cowboy who stupidly waded into a complex and horrific situation without knowing his butt from his badge, and has made it 1,000 times worse.

It looked good when he went in and, clearly, a small fast-strike force was plenty to destroy the government as well as the army. But it wasn't enough to maintain the peace while the government and army were rebuilt. It was just big enough to keep things rolling while billions and billions of tax dollars were given away to Halliburton, crooked ministry officials and assorted other liars and thieves, leaving the Iraqi people as well as the Americans in peril that has only grown since the day Bush ordered the attack.

David

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 10:23 PM
Here, this seems to apply not only to a lot of our European "allies", but to the Leftist in our own nest:

The Swedenization of Europe

Per Ahlmark
The Weekend Australian and Die Welt, June 12, 2004

Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism are becoming linked and
ever more rabid in today's Europe. They arise from a kind of blindness,
combined with a strange mixture of alienation, guilt, and fear toward both
Israel and America.

Millions of Europeans resist seeing Israel as a country fighting for its
survival. Israel cannot afford to lose one major war, as it would mean the
end of the Jewish democratic state. But huge numbers of Europeans believe
that something is fundamentally wrong with the Israelis: they never
compromise; they prefer using military means to solve political problems.

Something similar is at work in the European attitude to the US. Look at
Europe, many Europeans say, we have eradicated wars, dangerous nationalism,
and dictatorships. We created a peaceful European Union. We do not wage war;
we negotiate. We do not exhaust our resources on weapons. The rest of the
planet should learn from us how to live together without terrorizing each
other.

As a Swede, I have heard such pacific boasting all my life: that neutral
Sweden is a moral superpower. Now this bragging has become the EU's
ideology. We are the moral continent. Call this the "Swedenization" of
Europe.

Yes, today's EU is a miracle for a continent where two modern totalitarian
movements - Communism and Nazism - unleashed rivers of blood. But what
Europe forgets is how those ideologies were overcome. Without the US Army,
Western Europe would not have been liberated in 1945. Without the Marshall
Plan and NATO, it would not have taken off economically. Without the policy
of containment under America's security umbrella, the Red Army would have
strangled the dream of freedom in Eastern Europe, or brought European unity,
but under a flag with red stars.

West Europeans also forget that some areas of the world have never known
freedom. In many places, torture chambers are the rules of the game, not the
grotesque and shameful mistakes of ill-supervised troops. Any attempt in
such places to go behave the European way and negotiate - without the
military power needed to back up diplomacy - would be pathetic.

Instead of supporting those who fight international terrorism, many
Europeans try to blame the spread of terrorism on Israel and the US. This is
a new European illusion. Spain's latter day appeasement la Munich arises
from this thinking.

But what if Spain - and Europe as a whole - had reacted in the opposite way
to the Madrid train bombing of April, saying: "We promise that because of
that slaughter we will double our support for stabilization in Iraq by
sending twice as many troops, experts, engineers, teachers, policemen,
doctors, and billions of euros in support of allied forces and their Iraqi
co-workers." The triumph of terrorists would have been transformed into a
triumph of the war on terror.

The images many Europeans hold of America and Israel create the political
climate for some very ugly bias. You have the Great Satan and the Small
Satan. America wants to dominate the world - exactly the allegations made in
traditional anti-Semitic rhetoric about the Jews. Indeed, modern
anti-Zionist rhetoric portrays Israel's goal as domination of the whole
Middle East. Such ideas are reflected in opinions polls in which Europeans
claim that Israel and the US are the true dangers to world peace.

Ian Buruma, the British writer, claims that this European rage against
America and Israel has to do with guilt and fear. The two world wars led to
such catastrophic carnage that "never again" was interpreted as "welfare at
home, non-intervention abroad." The problem with this concept is that it
could only survive under the protection of American might.

Extreme anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are actually merging. The
so-called peace poster "Hitler Had Two Sons: Bush and Sharon," displayed in
European anti-war rallies, combines trivialization of Nazism with
demonization of both the victims of Nazism and those who defeated Nazism.

Much of this grows from a subconscious European guilt related to the
Holocaust. Now the Holocaust's victims - and their children and
grandchildren - are supposedly doing to others what was done to them. By
equating the murderer and the victim, we wash our hands.

This pattern of anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism returns again and again.
"The ugly Israeli" and "the ugly American" seem to be of the same family.
"The ugly Jew" becomes the instrumental part of this defamation when
so-called neoconservatives are blamed both for American militarism and
Israeli brutalities and then selectively named: Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams,
Kristol, etc. This is a new version of the old myth that Jews rule the US.

Earlier this year, the editor of Die Zeit, Josef Joffe, put his finger on
the issue: like Jews, Americans are said to be selfish and arrogant. Like
Jews, they are in thrall to a fundamentalist religion that renders them
self-righteous and dangerous. Like Jews, Americans are money-grabbing
capitalists, for whom the highest value is the cash nexus. "America and
Israel are the outsiders - just as Jews have been all the way into the 21st
century," Joffe says.

The links between anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism are all
too real. Unless Europe's leaders roundly condemn this unholy triple
alliance, it will poison Middle East politics and transatlantic relations
alike.

Hon. Per Ahlmark, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, is Co-Chairman
of UN Watch.

David Orange
01-14-2007, 10:24 PM
Far out, David. I hope none of the foam got on your shirt.

No, Mike, you never got close enough to get any on me. I know better than to let you that close.

David

Neil Mick
01-14-2007, 10:32 PM
It's a tribal society. To not only die while killing a Jew, but to know that the President of a mighty country will give your family a huge bonus after you die would be quite a nice incentive in that society. Knowing that their family would get $10,000 to $25,000 in cash would certainly comfort the prospective bomber.

That's one theory...but, only one, and only a theory. Certainly, you are in no position to speak about the likely motives of a suicide bomber.

None of us are.

David Orange
01-14-2007, 10:35 PM
That's one theory...but, only one, and only a theory. Certainly, you are in no position to speak about the likely motives of a suicide bomber.

None of us are.

Why not, Neil? There's been a lot written on the subject from their side. Their attitudes toward Israel are clear, their grievances and their religious justification for their actions. Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs have released countless statements. Their motivations and their social structure are pretty clear. There's no need to manufacture any mystery to their rationale when they have made it clear.

David

Guilty Spark
01-14-2007, 10:47 PM
Grant Wagar wrote:
Semantics, no?
He was paying someone to kill random people.
Neil Mick wrote:

No, NOT semantics. You have to look at it in the light of what he was trying to accomplish.

That last line is quite scarry, I wonder how many tyrants through out history just felt that people simply needed to look their attrocities in a different light to be justified :(

That's one theory...but, only one, and only a theory. Certainly, you are in no position to speak about the likely motives of a suicide bomber.

None of us are.


Sure we are Neil, you just did it above. You often speculate on motives, especially your nemesis Bush. Above your speaking about Saddams possible motives re: seeing things in a different light and why he did what he did.

Why do do suicide bombers do what they do?
Religion and money.
The temptation of going to heaven with the added incentive of providing cash for ones family. Nevermind the fact that this heartless act takes away people from other famlies likely drastically ruining what meager income they have.

Your trying to say Bush is responsible for all these innocent lives lost in the war yet you don't extend the same guilt to someone like Saddam?
Offering someone money to either them or their immediate family in return for killing whoever is murder.

David Orange
01-14-2007, 10:59 PM
So how about it? As an alternative to sending more troops over there, why shouldn't we FIRST require Al Maliki to begin cooperating now? What's wrong with seeing some results BEFORE we commit more people and money? Why is it so important to Bush to increase troops NOW when he has resisted that idea for so long?

He's flip-flopped now and he's as dead-set on sending more troops as he previously was set on not sending them.

He says no alternative has been offered, but I say, "Let Al Maliki prove himself first." If Al Maliki would start cooperating, I might be persuaded that some good could come from an increase in troops.

As it looks under Bush's plan, it will just be a foot in the door to get more and more troops in, get the draft rolling again and have us hung up there for thirty years.

What's wrong with my alternative?

David

Mike Sigman
01-14-2007, 11:07 PM
So how about it? As an alternative to sending more troops over there, why shouldn't we FIRST require Al Maliki to begin cooperating now? What's wrong with seeing some results BEFORE we commit more people and money? Why is it so important to Bush to increase troops NOW when he has resisted that idea for so long?As has been pointed out by quite a few pundits, up to one month ago most of the Dem's were calling for sending more troops to Iraq. Why the flip-flop and why do you follow their lead like such a loyal dog?

Mike

Neil Mick
01-15-2007, 02:11 AM
Why not, Neil? There's been a lot written on the subject from their side. Their attitudes toward Israel are clear, their grievances and their religious justification for their actions. Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs have released countless statements. Their motivations and their social structure are pretty clear.

David

Oh, stop. Loud slogans and public announcements, doth not explanation of individual motives, make.

There's no need to manufacture any mystery to their rationale when they have made it clear.

"They" do not = the varying reasons why one chooses to be a suicide bomber.

Neil Mick
01-15-2007, 02:36 AM
That last line is quite scarry, I wonder how many tyrants through out history just felt that people simply needed to look their attrocities in a different light to be justified :(

Nice try to paint me in the tones of an apologist, Grant: but this fish isn't biting. Sorry, but I try to see Hussein through the eyes of an historian...and Hussein was many things.

See? I can talk about the positive things Bush has done and still not apologize for him. I can talk about what a great job Bush has done for the profits of ExxonMobil, how profits for pharmaceutical companies are soaring, how business in Bechtel is probably booming, and that the economy seems to be doing pretty well, supposedly. The rich are very happy. Big, expensive housing markets are booming. Real estate is up.

How was that? :freaky: Did that balance the books?

Sure we are Neil, you just did it above. You often speculate on motives,

I speculate about actions, but not motives. Not seriously. I mean, I could speculate what's going on behind those deer-caught-in-the-headlights eyes, but really...how would I know?

especially your nemesis Bush.

He's not my nemesis...he's the nemesis of peace (and thereby, the nemesis of us all).

By his own admission...

He's the War President. He's got war on his mind, after all.

Above your speaking about Saddams possible motives re: seeing things in a different light and why he did what he did.

Why do do suicide bombers do what they do?
Religion and money.

I'm so glad that you find such easy answers into things that you haven't experienced, Grant. I guess I'm simple...as I try not to assume that I understand, what I have never experienced.

I have never experienced such despair, and so I cannot really comment.

The temptation of going to heaven with the added incentive of providing cash for ones family.

I highly recommend a movie I recently saw which is a meditation on the subject: Paradise Now (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445620/)

Your trying to say Bush is responsible for all these innocent lives lost in the war yet you don't extend the same guilt to someone like Saddam?

Hussein got "justice:" where's the justice for Bush? And, why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I said no such thing.

Offering someone money to either them or their immediate family in return for killing whoever is murder.

Oh, you mean, like offering money to someone or their immediate family in return for going overseas, putting on a uniform, and killing someone under orders, isn't?

My, what a convenient (and selective) morality.

Neil Mick
01-15-2007, 02:54 AM
So how about it? As an alternative to sending more troops over there, why shouldn't we FIRST require Al Maliki to begin cooperating now? What's wrong with seeing some results BEFORE we commit more people and money?

Like what? The man is a puppet...he isn't even democratic, to his own parliament. He refused to allow them to make a statement on the Occupation.

I mean, seriously, what can you expect? It's game over for the Long Hard Slog. The architect of this mess was booted out, and now Bush won't even follow the tepid suggestions of the Iraq Study Group.

How about we talk to Syria and Iran, instead of threaten them with attack, huh?? Now, how radical is that??

Why is it so important to Bush to increase troops NOW when he has resisted that idea for so long?

For the same reason that Clinton bombed an aspirin-factory in Somalia...slumping polls, and a shift in Congress. What matter, the reality on the ground?

He says no alternative has been offered, but I say, "Let Al Maliki prove himself first." If Al Maliki would start cooperating, I might be persuaded that some good could come from an increase in troops.

As it looks under Bush's plan, it will just be a foot in the door to get more and more troops in, get the draft rolling again and have us hung up there for thirty years.

What's wrong with my alternative?

David

What's wrong, is that you try to wring blood from a puppet. Al Maleki can't even command his own gov't, much less Baghdad, much less the civil war, much less the insurgency. He's more impotent to stop the insurgency, than the Lebanese Army is, to stop Hezbollah...and THAT's saying something!

The whole invasion was based on a lie, the notion that Iraq is a part of the war on terror, is a lie; and now the idea that we can win this "war" is a lie and is the literal illustration of folly. By the time this whole thing is over, it's going to make Vietnam look like VE Day. We're not going to get over THIS one, for a long, long time. And, the longer we stay there, the harder it will be for the country to recover from its wounds.

Guilty Spark
01-15-2007, 05:16 AM
I'm so glad that you find such easy answers into things that you haven't experienced, Grant. I guess I'm simple...as I try not to assume that I understand, what I have never experienced.

I have never experienced such despair, and so I cannot really comment.
I had a few conversations with a fellow over the course of two weeks who was set on blwoing himself up to punish America. Had some interesting views and while perhaps I've never experienced the religious zeal to become a pot hole in the ground I feel talking to him gave me a decent insight. Atleast the insight of one individual.
I gotta tell you Neil, seeing old men and kids killed in person really effects you. Really steels you against the utter waste and hate involved in a suicide bomb attack, I pray you only see it on TV and on the internet.
I'm sure people get the exact same feeling from seeing wounded and dead from airstrikes.

Oh, you mean, like offering money to someone or their immediate family in return for going overseas, putting on a uniform, and killing someone under orders, isn't?
I guess thats where like you I don't consider it the same thing at all.

David Orange
01-15-2007, 02:26 PM
As has been pointed out by quite a few pundits, up to one month ago most of the Dem's were calling for sending more troops to Iraq.

In what universe, Mike. Just cite a source--but better, post a quote or I have to say you strictly made that up.

Why the flip-flop and why do you follow their lead like such a loyal dog?

Don't make yourself out as a dummy, Mike. Again, all you have to do is show any instance of my calling for more troops. You can't. So, no flip-flop, Flippy. The only time "more troops" would have made sense was at the very beginning. But since the invasion was stupid even then, the only appropriate place for "more troops" would have been in Afghanistan.

But again, Mike: what's wrong with making Al Maliki prove that he will cooperate before we escalate our commitment?

David

David Orange
01-15-2007, 02:34 PM
David Orange wrote:
"There's been a lot written on the subject from their side. Their attitudes toward Israel are clear, their grievances and their religious justification for their actions. Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs have released countless statements. Their motivations and their social structure are pretty clear."

Neil:
Oh, stop. Loud slogans and public announcements, doth not explanation of individual motives, make.

Yes, they do, Neil. Those are the people that recruited and supplied the suicide bombers with their vests. How many people can go home in a tizzy, throw together a suicide bomb vest, get on a bus with it and set it off? Not many. Where would they get the dynamite (or whatever they put in them)? Could you go home right now, make a vest that would get past ISRAELI security, and get on a bus to blow it up without blowing yourself up, first?

These people don't do these things on their own. They are recruited by organizations such as Fatah, Hams, Hizbollah and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. They're recruited and trained according to a well-defined rationale. The organization makes the martyrdom video for them, supplies them a professionally-made bomb and vest that will not explode until it's supposed to, and then will reliably explode when intended. Very few people could carry this off alone. Their motives are quite clear. And they know that their families will be rewarded, both monetarily and socially, for their actions.


David Orange wrote:
"There's no need to manufacture any mystery to their rationale when they have made it clear."

Neil:
"They" do not = the varying reasons why one chooses to be a suicide bomber.

Yes, Neil, they do. The suicide bombing movement is an organized industry. When the Israelis raid certain places, they find ready-made suicide vests and explosives. It's organized in the militias and bombers are recruited.

David

David Orange
01-15-2007, 02:40 PM
Al Maleki can't even command his own gov't, much less Baghdad, much less the civil war, much less the insurgency. He's more impotent to stop the insurgency, than the Lebanese Army is, to stop Hezbollah...and THAT's saying something!

But he was able to order US troops to stop the search of Sadr City for our missing interpreter. Why would Al Maliki try to stop the insurgency when it's supporting his goals? He likes things the way they are and he has not motivation to change any of it. So I say before we send more troops, make him prove that he will cooperate with our goals.

Since I know he never will, that means "NO SURGE."

The whole invasion was based on a lie, the notion that Iraq is a part of the war on terror, is a lie; and now the idea that we can win this "war" is a lie and is the literal illustration of folly. By the time this whole thing is over, it's going to make Vietnam look like VE Day. We're not going to get over THIS one, for a long, long time. And, the longer we stay there, the harder it will be for the country to recover from its wounds.

That's right. So make Al Maliki's cooperation a condition for further actions. Since we won't get his cooperation, wrap it up and bring our people home. Or surge them into Afghanistan and finish what we should have finished if Bush hadn't sidetracked to his personal animosities in Iraq.

David

Mike Sigman
01-15-2007, 02:41 PM
In what universe, Mike. Just cite a source--but better, post a quote or I have to say you strictly made that up.
Here's Harry Reid on December 17. Senate Dem leader.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-12-17T192410Z_01_N17432969_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-IRAQ.xml

But again, Mike: what's wrong with making Al Maliki prove that he will cooperate before we escalate our commitment?You got the wrong guy. I've been totally opposed to this "hearts and minds" stuff that led to the current corrupt Iraqi government (Is there *any* Arab government that is not corrupt?). We should have levelled the place and made friends only afterwards. The "hearts and minds" stuff only encourages the enemy to use you for a sap.

Mike

Neil Mick
01-15-2007, 02:49 PM
I had a few conversations with a fellow over the course of two weeks who was set on blwoing himself up to punish America. Had some interesting views and while perhaps I've never experienced the religious zeal to become a pot hole in the ground I feel talking to him gave me a decent insight. Atleast the insight of one individual.

Hmm...that's interesting. Well, you have one up on my experience, then.

I gotta tell you Neil, seeing old men and kids killed in person really effects you. Really steels you against the utter waste and hate involved in a suicide bomb attack, I pray you only see it on TV and on the internet.

Yes, true enough. I hope for the same.

I'm sure people get the exact same feeling from seeing wounded and dead from airstrikes.

Exactly.


I guess thats where like you I don't consider it the same thing at all.

Actually, IMO, moral differences are not so diverse. The only difference seems to be the uniform, and I see no moral diversity btw blowing up ppl for a radical cause, or blowing up ppl for freedom/democracy/or some other ism.

Not morally, anyway. The biggest moral boundary btw soldiers and suicide bombers is in the soldiers' adherence to the Geneva Conventions. Failures to adhere to the Conventions puts that soldier (or his Army, if they do it with any regularity) in the same slippery-slope and murky moral quagmire, as the bombers.

And so, if a soldier adheres to the Conventions, they fail if they kill innocents. With a suicide bomber, who has no such moral limitation, they succeed (in their mission, if not their ultimate goal) if they kill innocents.

Frankly, I have my own "modest proposal" for suicide bombers. They lose the moral high-ground in striking out against an Occupation, when they target innocents.

IMO, the radical sects who send out suicide bombers should change their perogatives. They should announce an end to targeting innocents and switch their priorities to attacking military targets, or overt (and nonliving) targets of symbolic and military importance.

For instance, the Palestinian suicide bombers should stop trying to blow up buses and kids, and focus entirely on destroying the Apartheid Wall. They should announce to all the media an "Apartheid Wall" blitz, invite the media to come see their own slaughter, and then launch themselves, en masse, at the Wall.

Sure, the IDF would be there to massacre them like sheep: but at least they could claim the moral high ground over the Israeli gov't. And, of course, it leaves innocent civilians alive.

In what universe, Mike. Just cite a source--but better, post a quote or I have to say you strictly made that up.

Mike...make something up? BE still, my beating heart! :eek: Nah, he'll just claim that it's "written in ALL the mainstream media (the same media he likes to decry, as being Liberally biased)." :rolleyes:

Harry Reid...

is only ONE Dem...NOT "dem's." Yeah, you're right, David: Mike's playing fast and loose with the facts, again. :p

what's wrong with making Al Maliki prove that he will cooperate before we escalate our commitment?

What standard would you set to show that an impotent puppet is cooperating? How do you know whether or not he's cooperating, when he'll just say whatever you want, even tho he is powerless to do anything substantial?

Neil Mick
01-15-2007, 02:54 PM
But he was able to order US troops to stop the search of Sadr City for our missing interpreter. Why would Al Maliki try to stop the insurgency when it's supporting his goals?

:confused:


He likes things the way they are and he has not motivation to change any of it.

You're going to have to connect the dots for me, on that one, David. How is a destabilizing insurgency helping al-Maleki, in any way? Seems to me that its accomplishing the opposite.

So I say before we send more troops, make him prove that he will cooperate with our goals.

Yes, you've said that. But, what would "making him cooperate" translate to, in real terms? How do you see him "cooperating?"


That's right. So make Al Maliki's cooperation a condition for further actions. Since we won't get his cooperation, wrap it up and bring our people home. Or surge them into Afghanistan and finish what we should have finished if Bush hadn't sidetracked to his personal animosities in Iraq.

David

I think a surge in Afghanistan would do as much good as one in Iraq...that is, nothing at all.

Neil Mick
01-15-2007, 03:01 PM
Yes, they do, Neil. Those are the people that recruited and supplied the suicide bombers with their vests. How many people can go home in a tizzy, throw together a suicide bomb vest, get on a bus with it and set it off? Not many. Where would they get the dynamite (or whatever they put in them)? Could you go home right now, make a vest that would get past ISRAELI security, and get on a bus to blow it up without blowing yourself up, first?

The public declarations of extremist organizations only gives a hint into the minds of its individuals. This is true of all groups, no matter what their beliefs.

These people don't do these things on their own. They are recruited by organizations such as Fatah, Hams, Hizbollah and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. They're recruited and trained according to a well-defined rationale. The organization makes the martyrdom video for them, supplies them a professionally-made bomb and vest that will not explode until it's supposed to, and then will reliably explode when intended. Very few people could carry this off alone. Their motives are quite clear. And they know that their families will be rewarded, both monetarily and socially, for their actions.

That explains some of the mechanism of recruitment and deployment, but explains nothing about why ppl join up, or what they are feeling, when they do.

Yes, Neil, they do.

No David, they don't. Look, you can show me recruitment films of the US Army, introduce me to recruiters and talk about how and why the troops are deployed and the philosophy of the US Army...but that explains nothing about why individual soldiers join, or what circumstances drew them to make the choice to enlist.

It's the same with bombers.

I'm talking about the dynamics of groups versus individual choice, not the public face of those groups. Different topic.

The suicide bombing movement is an organized industry. When the Israelis raid certain places, they find ready-made suicide vests and explosives. It's organized in the militias and bombers are recruited.

David

And again,

the industry of suicide bombing does not = the individual motives and pressures to become a suicide bomber

David Orange
01-16-2007, 07:37 PM
What standard would you set to show that an impotent puppet is cooperating? How do you know whether or not he's cooperating, when he'll just say whatever you want, even tho he is powerless to do anything substantial?

Do you recall that one of our people got kidnapped and our troops were looking for him? They had roadblocks and checkpoints around Sadr City and were conducting a full-on search until Al Maliki, the impotent, ordered us to make them stop. And we stopped. If that's impotent, I'm the King of England.

David

David Orange
01-16-2007, 08:05 PM
Mike Sigman wrote:
As has been pointed out by quite a few pundits, up to one month ago most of the Dem's were calling for sending more troops to Iraq.

Let's see...I called you on that. Now, what it sounds like is you're saying "MOST" of the Democrats were demanding that Bush raise the number of troops over there, but what you give me is ONE Democrat who's willing to consider supporting Bush's demand for more troops.

Here's Harry Reid on December 17. Senate Dem leader.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-12-17T192410Z_01_N17432969_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-IRAQ.xml

Doesn't support your statement. Got any more? The Democrats were never making any calls for more troops after Bush drove us in with a fraction of the necessary numbers.

We should have levelled the place and made friends only afterwards. The "hearts and minds" stuff only encourages the enemy to use you for a sap.

We should have done the full job in Afghanistan and kept our word to those poor suckers who believe us every time and get abandoned every time. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan. Then we would have at least had a strong position to work from there if Saddam had really started causing trouble.

David

David Orange
01-16-2007, 08:18 PM
David Orange wrote:
"He likes things the way they are and he has not motivation to change any of it."

Neil:
You're going to have to connect the dots for me, on that one, David. How is a destabilizing insurgency helping al-Maleki, in any way? Seems to me that its accomplishing the opposite.

The insurgency is destabilizing for us and for the Sunnis. By letting the Shiites slake their bloodlust in revenge on the Sunnis for all the years Saddam kept them down, Al Maliki is building great support for himself. By letting them attack US troops, he's showing that he's a man to the Iraqis, that he will support them against us. So he's building a strong position for himself. I'll believe it's bad for him when they kill him. But one of the biggest killers is Mutada Al Sadr, and he supports Al Maliki.


David Orange wrote:
"So I say before we send more troops, make him prove that he will cooperate with our goals."

Neil:
Yes, you've said that. But, what would "making him cooperate" translate to, in real terms? How do you see him "cooperating?"

If Al Maliki were cooperating, Sadr's Mahdi Army would disarm and stop opposing US troops. We would be free to rescue our captured man (or they would just turn him over). If Al Maliki took the first step, a tremendous amount of the violence would subside. If he took the second, we might begin to believe we could trust him.

But the "surge" idea is stupid because it implies Al Maliki will do those things, and it will make us go to the trouble of sending all those troops back into hell before we find out that he won't do them after all. I don't believe for a second that he'll ever do them. But if he were going to do it at all, he could do it now. Since he won't, I'm opposed to the stupid "surge," which is just a code word for "escalation."



David Orange wrote:
"Since we won't get his cooperation, wrap it up and bring our people home. Or surge them into Afghanistan and finish what we should have finished if Bush hadn't sidetracked..."

Neil:
I think a surge in Afghanistan would do as much good as one in Iraq...that is, nothing at all.

But 130,000 troops would not be a "surge." They could really eliminate the Taliban and really DO in Afghanistan what they claimed they were going to do to begin with: build schools and roads without the threat that terrorists would bomb the schools and roads and murder the teachers.

But that's not going to happen either, of course. Bush is a hopeless fiasco in wingtip shoes and a smirk. And naked other than that.

David

David Orange
01-16-2007, 08:30 PM
The public declarations of extremist organizations only gives a hint into the minds of its individuals. This is true of all groups, no matter what their beliefs.

Those organizations recruited the bombers and supplied the bombs and vests. They convinced the bomber. They chose him, not vice versa. Do you think that individual KKK members' reasoning is very much different from the group's reasoning? They think what the group tells them to think. And the group incentivizes them with tales of martyrdom, virgins in paradise and a windfall for their mamas.

That explains some of the mechanism of recruitment and deployment, but explains nothing about why ppl join up, or what they are feeling, when they do.

Sure it does. They were raised in that single-minded ocean of hate and the Israelies' responses to that single-minded intent to kill them and cast them into the ocean reinforces that hate.

you can show me recruitment films of the US Army, introduce me to recruiters and talk about how and why the troops are deployed and the philosophy of the US Army...but that explains nothing about why individual soldiers join, or what circumstances drew them to make the choice to enlist.

Yes, it tells you a lot. They believe, basically, what the recruiters tell them, often including some whopper lies about where they're going to be sent, what they're going to be doing and so on. The average recruit is 17 or 18 years old without a lot of clear prospects. Otherwise, he's a college ROTC student who graduates as a 1st Lieutenant and an obligation to serve. It's better if they have a basic inclination to go in anyway, but even someone with no inclination to participate can be persuaded under the right circumstances.

In fact, I know a kid who just got out of boot camp. I couldn't believe it when I heard he'd joined up. But he said, "I just wanted to be a part of it. I wanted to help. If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over here."

It's the same with bombers.

Right. The social millieu inclines them and the recruiter convinces them. It's the same the world over and throughout time.

the industry of suicide bombing does not = the individual motives and pressures to become a suicide bomber

It manufactures the motives and supplies the pressures. It hands them the vest and a promise of money for Mama, and the deal is done.

David

Taliesin
01-17-2007, 07:46 AM
Mike

can you explain why you believe criticism of the current US-regime is "anti-American".

Please consider the following quote

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president."

Theodore Roosevelt

Given he was both a President of the United States and someone who served and fought in a war and personally lead the way on at least one notable occasion.

I love to hear why you undoubtely believe he was wrong particularly since your usual whines that a person who speaks like that s , Liberal, or a European, or, Ignorant, or has not 'served his country' etc.

Mike Sigman
01-17-2007, 08:57 AM
Mike

can you explain why you believe criticism of the current US-regime is "anti-American".

Please consider the following quote

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president."

Theodore Roosevelt Wait a minute.... are you suggesting that even though you're a Brit, your constant criticism of Bush and US policy means that you're actually a US patriot? I'm confused.

If, during WWII you had done nothing but carp about Roosevelt and US policy while a war was going on and troops were at risk and enemy propaganda was on the same side you were on, I think most people would understand where the "anti US" label would come from.

Whether agree or disagree, must Americans stayed mum and supported the troops and US in WWII and Korea. This recent surge of anti-American shouting when the troops are at risk is something the liberals started with the Vietnam war. North Vietnamese have admitted to massively depending on manipulating the vocal liberals by means of propaganda. The Arabs fully support every liberal position and go out of their way to make the US seem like the bad guy in all things. Liberals agree... they tend to be anti-American in that sense. The Arabs have been gleeful that the Libs won the last election.... a fact the liberal press doesn't mention very much, in a sullen sort of way.

Let's not pretend that the anti-American fervor of the EU and liberals is actually patriotic. It strictly partisan. The absolute silence about the liberal-endorsed attack on Milosevic proved that.

Mike

Taliesin
01-17-2007, 12:15 PM
Mike

So your answer to my question is NO you cannot explain why you believe that criticism of the current US Regime is anti-American.

Still I'm not at all surprised that you are confused. It unfortunate that you are unable to understand what patriotism is. (or refuse to understand it is)

So lets try again

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."

Theodore Roosevelt


It therefore follows that people who critcise the current US President...

Now this is the hard bit Mike, so you're going to have to concentrate real hard here

... Are criticising the current US President.

It does not mean that, if they are Americans they are not patriotoic.

It does not mean that anyone who criticised the current US President is anti-American

Indeed clearly indicating that they were prefer a genuinely democratically elected, competent President than the individual currently disgracing the White House, is actually a pro American stance.

To avoid you getting confused again let me put it simply -

People who want better for the USA support the USA

People who want the President to do the best that can be done for their brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers in uniform - rather then just spend and destroy their lives for his own politcal convience ARE SUPPORTING THEM.

Neil Mick
01-17-2007, 12:44 PM
Do you recall that one of our people got kidnapped and our troops were looking for him? They had roadblocks and checkpoints around Sadr City and were conducting a full-on search until Al Maliki, the impotent, ordered us to make them stop. And we stopped. If that's impotent, I'm the King of England.

David

All righty, then, your majesty. :crazy:

Sorry, David, but ONE order, obeyed by the US Occupation (no doubt, pre-approved by his handlers), doth not "potency," make. The fact that he's not considering running for a 2nd term should speak volumes to you, about his potency-in-office.

Do his laws have any effect outside of Baghdad? Does he enjoy the support of his Parliament, or his people? Of course not...beyond a few limited fiats he can issue to the US and Iraqi soldiers (and, of course, the speeches he can read off, penned by Bush's speechwriters): he's got nothing. He's worse than a puppet, because at least a puppet can pretend that he represents the will of his people.

Mike Sigman
01-17-2007, 12:49 PM
People who want better for the USA support the USA

People who want the President to do the best that can be done for their brothers and sisters, and fathers and mothers in uniform - rather then just spend and destroy their lives for his own politcal convience ARE SUPPORTING THEM.The interesting point to consider would be this:

All the libs say that deep down inside they are very patriotic and that's why even in time of war that protest against the troops, do everything they can to "obstruct the war" (unless, of course, it's a war that the libs in th US and Europe happen to want).... so you're positing that these people "want better for the USA".

On the other hand, our sworn enemies who make no bones about trying to destroy the US are very happy, ecstatic even if you read/hear their news media, that the libs won the election. It means that they are a step closer to destroying the US and the West. They all call it a victory for the Mujahadeen.

Isn't it weird how these dummies don't understand that the libs are doing the "best" for the US???? Or maybe libs like you are so far out of touch with reality you don't see how you encourage your own enemies to kill the very people who are protecting your butt?

Mike

Neil Mick
01-17-2007, 01:05 PM
On the other hand, our sworn enemies who make no bones about trying to destroy the US are very happy, ecstatic even if you read/hear their news media, that the libs won the election. It means that they are a step closer to destroying the US and the West. They all call it a victory for the Mujahadeen.

Ahahahahah! Your posts are better than the Saturday funnies, Mike. Define "they??" Lemme guess...."Frontpagemagazine said that Newsmax reported that several prominent publications of 'sworn enemies' of the US said..."

Got any sources to justify this claim? Or, are you speaking out the side of your mouth again (as, you did with the nonsense you offered up, on Joe Wilson)?

Isn't it weird how these dummies don't understand that the libs are doing the "best" for the US????

Isn't it weird how you like to listen to "these dummies" (whomever they "really" are), when it suits your agenda? Much in the same way that you quote the mainstream media when it suits you, and decry its "liberal bias," when it doesn't?

Or maybe libs like you are so far out of touch with reality you don't see how you encourage your own enemies to kill the very people who are protecting your butt?

Mike

Or, maybe you are so far out of touch with simple etiquette, that you lack the imagination to avoid personal remarks, when you run out of argument? :rolleyes:

Taliesin
01-17-2007, 01:17 PM
Mike

I don't really need any more comments to convince me that you are a very sad very deluded individual.

Do I think that people who would rather their own country did not illegally invade other countries, destroy it's infrastructure, torture its people. That they would prefer it if their army was not left to be killed, crippled and maimed by the native population incensed by the number of relatives killed, simply because it was politically convienient.

Do I think that People who would rather prevent more of that happening rather than promoting more of that happening believe it would be better for the USA. - YES

Do I think people belive that the USA was better if they didn't indefinately detain people without charge - but prosecuted them according to the law - YES

Do I believe that trying to prevent the creation of whole generations of terrorists is a good thing -YES

Do I believe that reestablishing the concept of the Rule of Law is a good thing YES

Do I Believe that respecting Human Rights is a Good Thing - YES

I appreciate you have a very firm belief that escellating violence and creating enemies makes the USA safer.

I appreciate you believe getting more US troops killed and maimed makes the USA stronger.

I THINK YOU ARE WRONG

Neil Mick
01-17-2007, 01:28 PM
Mike

Do I think that People who would rather prevent more of that happening rather than promoting more of that happening believe it would be better for the USA. - YES

Do I think people belive that the USA was better if they didn't indefinately detain people without charge - but prosecuted them according to the law - YES

Do I believe that trying to prevent the creation of whole generations of terrorists is a good thing -YES

Do I believe that reestablishing the concept of the Rule of Law is a good thing YES

Do I Believe that respecting Human Rights is a Good Thing - YES

I THINK YOU ARE WRONG

So David, exactly when did you start hating America? :D :D :hypno: :hypno: ;)

Neil Mick
01-17-2007, 01:55 PM
They convinced the bomber. They chose him, not vice versa.

You seem very comfortable, speaking about the motivations of people you have never met. I do not.

Here, for instance. You're 100% sure, that 100% of suicide bombers are convinced by the recruiting organization?? This notion belies simple, basic statistical phenomena. At least someone probably joined up on his own, without any coaching.

Do you think that individual KKK members' reasoning is very much different from the group's reasoning? They think what the group tells them to think. And the group incentivizes them with tales of martyrdom, virgins in paradise and a windfall for their mamas.

Yeah, but if in the movie "Paradise Now," the whole virgin thing was offered up, but in a way to make it sound as if even the recruiter didn't really believe it.


Sure it does. They were raised in that single-minded ocean of hate and the Israelies' responses to that single-minded intent to kill them and cast them into the ocean reinforces that hate.

Um, right. And, living all their lives under an Occupation had absolutely nothing to do with it. Having your house knocked down, your movement limited, and all your water rationed to service the nearby settlements does nothing to your state of mind.

Uh huh.

Here's another movie for your list, David...Gaza Strip. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329112/) I believe it was banned to show in Israel.

Yes, it tells you a lot. They believe, basically, what the recruiters tell them, often including some whopper lies about where they're going to be sent, what they're going to be doing and so on.

All true...it does tell you a lot.

What it doesn't tell you is what elements (social, psychological, environmental) in the kid's life drove him to join up. Perhaps even the kid couldn't tell you. (*shrug*)

Taliesin
01-18-2007, 05:19 AM
Neil

"So David, exactly when did you start hating America? "


You've just stolen Mike Sigman's line

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 08:37 AM
I don't really need any more comments to convince me that you are a very sad very deluded individual. I'm particularly sad because I've been turning the liberal dependence on personal/USA attacks back on some of them. Ever noticed how much liberals depend on personal attack? Everyone is "racist" or "dumb" or "cowboy" or "picks on the little guy"... it constantly comes down to personal failings of anyone who doesn't conform to the politically-correct line. There is a viciousness associated with so many liberals that it's scarey. In the Bush-Kerry leadup, it was fun to note that the public was getting so tired of the constant personal attacks by liberals, that at the Democratic National Convention they constrained the speakers from making the normal liberal attacks on everyone that didn't agree with them. Hillary Clinton has been shocked at the depths of hatred among the far Left groups who try to force her to conform to anti-war commitment with name-calling, hate stuff, etc.

You conform well, David. Nothing a good spanking by your mom wouldn't cure though.

And listen... don't start talking about the "poor US troops", the same people you'd throw under the bus in a moment.

Mike

Guilty Spark
01-18-2007, 11:16 AM
Ever noticed how much liberals depend on personal attack? Everyone is "racist" or "dumb" or "cowboy" or "picks on the little guy"

100%. See a lot of that in Canada.

Taliesin
01-18-2007, 11:54 AM
Mike

Didn't anyone ever introduce you to the phrase "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

After all none of the following

1. Far out, David. I hope none of the foam got on your shirt. - Post 42

2. Read your own post, David. You're an absolute ditz Post No 29

3. You conform well, David. Nothing a good spanking by your mom wouldn't cure though. - Post No 76

4. And listen... don't start talking about the "poor US troops", the same people you'd throw under the bus in a moment. - also Post No 76

Were posted by anyone you would call a liberal

They were posted by you.

Still it's nice to know you think that such personal attacks...

"constantly comes down to personal failings of anyone who doesn't conform to the politically-correct line". (also you)

Or is it that you believe it is only acceptable to use personal abuse against anyone whose argument you don't like (GBW is a not a hard done by living saint etc), and you are the one doing it.

BTW - Have you got your head round what patriotism is yet? (You see I figure if you throw out personal abuse, you should be able to take it)

Looking forward to your next piece of hypocrisy

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 12:00 PM
Didn't anyone ever introduce you to the phrase "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"
Er.... did you miss my posts about where I said I deliberately return it and it upsets liberals, David? I.e., I'm doing it on purpose, not because it's the way I normally debate.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 12:26 PM
Neil

"So David, exactly when did you start hating America? "


You've just stolen Mike Sigman's line

I know...I wanted to beat him to the punch. Sometimes, his posts get so predictable... ;) ...like, belting out the chorus-line at the right point in a song...

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 12:31 PM
Er.... did you miss my posts about where I said I deliberately return it and it upsets liberals, David? I.e., I'm doing it on purpose, not because it's the way I normally debate.

Mike Sigman

Do me a favor, Mike...repeat the bolded part to yourself, in front of a mirror.

Does it seem to make as little sense to you, as it does me? No?

Well, how about this...doing it on "purpose," is no excuse. And, I contend that it is the way you normally debate. It's why I had you on ignore for so long.

Looking forward to your next piece of hypocrisy

He pegged it, you know. It's hypocritical to claim that others are constantly throwing personal attacks at you, and then proclaim innocence by stating that you're "different," because you do it on "purpose." :rolleyes:

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 12:51 PM
Do me a favor, Mike...repeat the bolded part to yourself, in front of a mirror.

Does it seem to make as little sense to you, as it does me? No?

Well, how about this...doing it on "purpose," is no excuse. And, I contend that it is the way you normally debate. It's why I had you on ignore for so long. Oh stoppit.... you had me on ignore but you kept replying and all the while suggesting that I PM you and beg to be taken off your ignore list. You're hilarious. :D He pegged it, you know. It's hypocritical to claim that others are constantly throwing personal attacks at you, and then proclaim innocence by stating that you're "different," because you do it on "purpose." :rolleyes: Gee, Neil.... as much as you like to personally attack Bush, Cheney, the US, Israel, The Jooz, etc., I'm surpised at how thin-skinned you get when someone hands the same sort of language back about your own failings. It's almost.. dare I say it.... "hypocritical". :cool:

Mike

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 01:16 PM
Oh stoppit.... you had me on ignore but you kept replying and all the while suggesting that I PM you and beg to be taken off your ignore list. You're hilarious.

Wrong. Almost all the time, I had you on ignore. The only time I bothered to look at your posts was when someone directly quoted it...couldn't help it. I read their posts: I read your's.

Sorry, Mike, but that duck don't fly, either. You might like to entertain your ego with the fantasy that I secretly read your nonsense and clench my fists in frustration (and please do so, if it makes you happy); but it just ain't so.


:D Gee, Neil.... as much as you like to personally attack Bush, Cheney, the US, Israel, The Jooz, etc.,

"Gee," Mike..."attacking" Bush, Cheney, the US, Israel, and (your racist labelling of the Jews) is NOT a personal attack!! Duh! :crazy:

Here, lemme break it down, for you...

The US, Israel, and Jews are not "persons." "Persons" are individuals: individuals who come on here, read the posts, and sometimes write.

Therefore, "attacking" countries, ethnicities, and organizations does not = a personal attack.

Bush, Cheney, Robert Fisk, Hussein, the Queen, and Nelson Mandela, are public figures, unlikely to either see, or care, what gets posted here. They are public figures probably used to some public mudslinging.

Therefore, "attacking" public figures is not a personal attack, as it attacks the public figure, not some people who read and write posts, here (yeah, yeah, Mike...I'm sure you disagree...all the while employing the same tactics, yourself).

Sometimes a topic centers upon criticizing the job a public figure is doing. And so, your constant, lowblow tactics only serve to bring down the level of the debate at best, at worst attempt to censor the topics (its been done here, before).

But, making personal comments about ppl here, IS a personal attack, and something you regularly do. It's not excusable because you do it "on purpose." evileyes

I'm surpised at how thin-skinned you get when someone hands the same sort of language back about your own failings. It's almost.. dare I say it.... "hypocritical". :cool:

Mike

I'm surprised at how often you get threads shut down, and yet never seem to get the hint.

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 01:25 PM
"Gee," Mike..."attacking" Bush, Cheney, the US, Israel, and (your racist labelling of the Jews) is NOT a personal attack!! Duh! :crazy:

Here, lemme break it down, so that even YOU can understand it...

The US, Israel, and Jews are not "persons." So Bush and Cheney are not people? Attacking someone's country, like Israel, is not offensive to anyone? Bush, Cheney, Hussein, the Queen, and Nelson Mandela, are public figures, unlikely to either see, or care, what gets posted here.

Therefore, "attacking" public figures is not a personal attack, as it attacks the public figure (yeah, yeah, Mike...I'm sure you disagree...all the while employing the same tactics, yourself).

But, making personal comments about ppl here, IS a personal attack. Hey... you've made personal comments about me and other posters, Neil, often gratuitously in posts unrelated to them at all. You're offensive. The silly idea that you can slander Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, whoever because "they a public figure" and therefore it doesn't count as offensive behaviour is absurd. Offensive is Offensive. Period. You're not any more entitled to free offensive behavior than I am or anyone else. When I dish it back at you, you get all huffy. Understand it, Neil... you can talk about American policy, the US, Israel, Bush, etc., without all the denigration. Try it sometime. You'll suddenly find that less people think you're an obnoxious jerk.

Mike

Hogan
01-18-2007, 01:35 PM
...The ... Jews are not "persons." "Persons" are individuals: individuals who come on here, read the posts, and sometimes write.

Jews are not people? Huh?

...Therefore, "attacking" ... ethnicities...does not = a personal attack.

Double huh?? So, if I attack an ethinc race, it's not personal? Forget when did you stop hating America, when did you join the KKK is what I want to know.

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 01:39 PM
So Bush and Cheney are not people?

Bush, Cheney, et al do not = Mike Sigman, Neil Mick, et al

Attacking someone's country, like Israel, is not offensive to anyone?

Someone's country does not = Someone's government

Hey... you've made personal comments about me and other posters, Neil, often gratuitously in posts unrelated to them at all.

Great! "EEWWW!!! Johnny did it too-oo!!"

Grow up, Mike.

You're offensive. (a personal remark) The silly idea that you can slander Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, whoever because "they a public figure" and therefore it doesn't count as offensive behaviour is absurd. Offensive is Offensive. Period.

Please. If we cannot criticize our government and our public figures, then we are a sad "free society," indeed.

Besides...I find your heavily slanted, pseudo-news sources, "offensive..." where does it end?

Face it, Mike: there's a difference btw attacking a public figure, and attacking a person, posting here...and you cross it regularly. You've done it before, and of course you'll do it again.

You're not any more entitled to free offensive behavior than I am or anyone else. When I dish it back at you, you get all huffy.

YOU, are not George W. Bush.

I, am not Robert Fisk.

Go on, Mike, have at Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, Sweden, the UN, Liberals, the Greens, environmentalists, feminists, the British, French, Santa Cruzians, and San Franciscans all you like.

You probably will, in future, and pass it off as "consciously" doing it. But you go ahead, as these are not personal attacks.

But when you begin a sentence with "You are..." guess what? That IS a personal attack.

Look it up, Mike. Dictionary.com

Understand it, Neil... you can talk about American policy, the US, Israel, Bush, etc., without all the denigration. Try it sometime. You'll suddenly find that less people think you're an obnoxious jerk.

Mike

Ah yes, the famed Mike Sigman, final, personal remark.

Will I get this post finished, before Jun shuts it down, for that, I wonder...? :blush:

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 01:47 PM
OK, in reading back some of these posts, I can see that some readers might misconstrue a remark I made.

So, let me simply make a correction...no, it's not OK to attack ethnicities. I do not condone it: and no Mike, I don't attack ethnicities. Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt, either.

An ethnicity is not = to a government. Just as,

Americans do not = the US gov't

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 01:57 PM
OK, in reading back some of these posts, I can see that some readers might misconstrue a remark I made.

So, let me simply make a correction...no, it's not OK to attack ethnicities. I do not condone it: and no Mike, I don't attack ethnicities. Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt, either.

An ethnicity is not = to a government. Just as,

Americans do not = the US gov't That's a dodge, Neil. You can't condemn "Israelis" and say you only mean the government that the majority of Israelis voted for to represent themselves. You attack the people, or at least the people who voted for that democratically-elected government. Your posts are full of hate, Neil; completely out of balance. Take a hint.

And incidentally, Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity.

You might try reading this article again... it talks very precisely about the kind of person that has your views:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1317489&ct=1747917

Mike Sigman

Hogan
01-18-2007, 02:10 PM
...Americans do not = the US gov't

But that's what representaive democracy is all about. The government IS the people.

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 02:22 PM
That's a dodge, Neil. You can't condemn "Israelis" and say you only mean the government that the majority of Israelis voted for to represent themselves.

I'm sorry, Mike, but in the world that most of us live in, gov't's do different things, than the people. Sometimes (often, actually), those actions go against the will of the people. Sometimes (often) the actions of the gov't go against the interests of the people.

And so, it's reasonable to criticize the gov't, and not criticize a people.

You attack the people, or at least the people who voted for that democratically-elected government.

Sorry, but your doghouse seems full of toothless old dogs, today. :hypno: None of 'em are in a huntin' mood...

I attack the decisions of the leaders, I am not attacking a people.
I attack the methods of election (as in, Bush, and 2000): I might be critical of the people's methods of election, but sorry...it's a far cry to say that I am anti-American, because I am critical of the Bush gov't.

The President is a man, sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect the American people. The President is NOT, however, the American people. He is a public figure, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that attacking Bush's job-performance is the same thing, as attacking someone posting, here. Different animal, and I suspect that you know this.

Your posts are full of hate, Neil; completely out of balance. Take a hint.

Speaking of hints... ahem...

Projection (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/projection)

11. Psychology. a. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.
b. Psychoanalysis. such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.

You might try reading this article again... it talks very precisely about the kind of person that has your views:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1317489&ct=1747917

Mike Sigman

Yes, yes, how quaint. You try to box me in with a slinger of "isms." Nice, but I think you'd better start looking for a new dog-kennel.

In a disingenuous mood today...? :uch:

Cady Goldfield
01-18-2007, 05:39 PM
And incidentally, Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity.




Not quite. I remember reading and discussing this in grad school, with some of my cultural and evolutionary-ecology anthropology profs and co-students, as well as reading a number of papers and studies. From what has been researched, it's viewed as a "tribal" religion that was developed by an ethnic group which has since diversified somewhat due to diaspora, but which despite that has retained a substantial amount of its ethnic markings, as well as a considerable amount of traceable DNA.

Modernday [hereditary] Jews are descended from Semitic, Middle-Eastern peoples. Despite 2,000 years of diaspora throughout the world, from ancient Samaria and Judea, random samplings of Jews in Eastern and Central Europe had 70% or more of their DNA matching with that of present-day Semitic peoples of the Middle East. In other words, they are much more closely related to Arabs than to Europeans. And in fact, there is a "Cohen" gene that can be traced back on the Y chromosome. It is now widely known in genetic anthropology. By the way, it takes very little outside genetic influx (from intermarriage, rape) to cause superficial phenotypic features such as blond hair or light eyes, and such. A few intermarriages of the span of several generations are enough to do that. But genotypically, given the huge number of genes, it's a drop in the bucket. Overall, Jews by heredity can be genetically said to be...Jewish.

Because they remained fairly insular, partly due to persecution and partly through religiouis adherance, Jews also tended to develop ethnic cultural markers -- language (Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino), literature, music, theater, cuisine, art/craft, legal and more. They even have their "own" diseases, such as Tay-Sachs. Insularity helps to create ethnicity and culture.

BTW, Jews, like a lot of other ethnicities, have only had mainstream surnames for maybe 200 year (before that, you were so-and-so, son of so-and-so), but their names are very distinctively ethnic-Jewish, except of course for those who changed their names to fit the majority cultures in which they lived. People usually have names that reveal their ethnicity or nationality, not their religion (except if your name is Jesus Maria Santos... :) ).

Don't confuse the bricks-and-mortar religion with the ethnicity that "created" and bore it. An ethnically Anglo-Saxon or Celtic person can convert to the Jewish religion, but he can't become "Jewish-Semitic" and start looking like Sasha Baron Cohen. ;) A hereditary Jew who converts to Anglican-Church Christianity doesn't suddenly change his ethnicity and become Anglo-Saxon. His name is still Disraeli-Levine. ;) A Jew whose ancestors migrated into Poland, with very little or no intermarriage with the local Poles, is not a Slav. He remains the descendent of a Semitic, Middle-Eastern ethnicity. A Jew who is an atheist is still Jewish. There's an old saying -- "You can change your Moses but you can't change your noses." That saying probably was coined before rhinoplasty. :D

What makes it confusing, is that there is no cultural name for this still-extant ethnic group. We instead use the label "Jew" for both religious and ethnic labeling because there is no other established, viable name for a group that has been peripatetic outside the Middle East (as well as within it) for two millennia.

Personally, I see Judaism as the tribal faith of an ethnic group that has been without a homeland for so long that it is no longer identified as being an individual ethnicity by some. But the DNA doesn't lie. It points back to a very set geographic area.

It is not simple black-and-white.

Mark Freeman
01-18-2007, 06:41 PM
BTW, Jews, like a lot of other ethnicities, have only had mainstream surnames for maybe 200 year (before that, you were so-and-so, son of so-and-so), but their names are very distinctively ethnic-Jewish, except of course for those who changed their names to fit the majority cultures in which they lived. People usually have names that reveal their ethnicity or nationality, not their religion (except if your name is Jesus Maria Santos... :) ).



Informative post Cady, thanks :)

My Great Grandrather was a Russian/Jewish (Jewish/Russian?) fefugee in the early 20thC. He came to the east end of London and worked as a tailor, as did many other of his compatriots. His surname was Friedman, and he converted to my name to fit in.
The Jews back then did face a fair bit of anti-semitism, but in general they were accepted fairly well into the wider british community. British Jews are a quiet bunch, they quietly go about their lives, prospering, in a pretty tolerant environment. They favour neither left or right in political life. The last time I personally came across an overtly anti-jewish sentiment was in humour rather than in hate. And no one is above taking the piss out of! ;)

The jewish way of life fits into modern mainstream society quite easily, even the 'radical' hassidic jews in full black robes seem to get by without ever raising anyones eyebrows.

This is starkly in contrast to radicals in another of the other sky-god faiths. ;)

regards,

Mark
p.s. I hope my name reveals my ethnicity/nationality now :D
p.p.s I am not pro or anti any ethnicity, and this doesn't constitute an attack on any individual, living or dead, real or fictional :rolleyes:

Cady Goldfield
01-18-2007, 07:36 PM
Mark, I just scanned the Web and found the name Friedman in a list of "common Jewish names in Great Britain." :)

And also found this interesting tidbit about the origins of Jewish names in Europe (note: be glad your great grandfather didn't live in Prussia, where he may have been assigned a surname that amounted to "Sewer stink" by unpleasant officials that didn't like poor, Jewish people. ;) ) :
-----------------------------
Until a few hundred years ago, Ashkenazim (Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe) followed no tradition of surnames, but used patronymics within the synagogue, and matronymics in other venues. For example, a boy named Joseph of a father named Isaac would be called to the Torah as Joseph ben Isaac. That same boy of a mother named Rachel would be known in business as Joseph ben Rachel. A male used the Hebrew word ben ("son") and a female used bas ("daughter").

When Northern European countries legislated that Jews required "proper" surnames, Jews were left with a number of options. Many Jews (particularly in Austria, Prussia, and Russia) were forced to adopt Germanic names. In 1781, Emperor Joseph II of Austria announced an Edict of Toleration for the Jews, which established the requirement for hereditary family names. The Jews of Galicia did not adopt surnames until 1785. He issued a law in 1787 which assumed that all Jews were to adopt German names. The city mayors were to choose the name for every Jewish family. A fee was charged for names related to precious metals and flowers, while free surnames were usually connected to animals and common metals.

Many took Yiddish names derived from occupation (e.g. Goldschmidt "Gold-smith"), from their father (e.g. Jacobson), or from location (e.g. Berliner, Warszawski or Pinsker). This makes Ashkenazi surnames similar to Scandinavian and especially Swedish ones.

Many Jews also took names of their Jewish lineage. A person of Priestly (Cohanite) descent could take the last name related to his lineage (e.g. Cohen - Hebrew/Yiddish or Colons - Spanish). If a Jew was a descendant of the Levites, then he could take a surname like Levin, Levi or Levenson.

In Prussia, special military commissions were created to choose the names. It became common that the poorer Jews were forced to adopt simply bizarre names or even derogatory, offensive ones. Among those created by Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann were:

Ochsenschwanz ("oxtail")
Temperaturwechsel ("temperature change")
Kanalgeruch ("sewer stink")
Singmirwas ("sing me something") [citation needed]

The Jews of Poland adopted names much earlier. Those who were adopted by a szlachta family usually changed the name to that of the family. Christened Jews usually adopted either a common Polish name or a name created after the month of their baptism. Thus, many Frankists adopted the name Majewski after the month of May in 1759.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 07:47 PM
British Jews are a quiet bunch, they quietly go about their lives, prospering, in a pretty tolerant environment. They favour neither left or right in political life. The last time I personally came across an overtly anti-jewish sentiment was in humour rather than in hate. And no one is above taking the piss out of! ;)

The jewish way of life fits into modern mainstream society quite easily, even the 'radical' hassidic jews in full black robes seem to get by without ever raising anyones eyebrows.

This is starkly in contrast to radicals in another of the other sky-god faiths. ;) Yeah, well, you can afford to be tolerant, Mark..... you had almost no Jews left in England, compared to what you used to have, after World War II. The Brits knew of and allowed Hitler to kill off Jews without protest, it turns out. In this case, I *will* make the distinction that the call was made at the highest level of government, not by the common people.

Secondly, unless you're Jewish, you're leaning yourself needlessly on your family ancestors, right?

Thirdly, the point was made that many Brits are really ambivalent about Jews because they weren't raised around them. They're friendlier to the Arabs, whom they know by association. I saw a long apologia in the Times from one columnist who pointed out why so many Brits were "anti-Jewish" and want the Arabs to overcome Israel... the Brits simply don't know any Jews personally and don't really care that's because their parents and grandparents had a hand in the great loss of the Jewish community to the British Isles.

What the hey.... somebody pulled your chestnuts out of the fire in World War II... too bad the Jews lost out.

FWIW

Mike

Cady Goldfield
01-18-2007, 08:29 PM
Pretty much most of Europe (with a few exceptions) looked the other way, were complicit, or aided in the Holocaust, either out of fear, apathy or support of Germany. Why single out England, when it has its own, more personal history? ;) The Massacre at York (1190) was a major event marking the fate of Jews in England:
http://ddickerson.igc.org/cliffords-tower.html

Back then, Jews were forced by English law (as in many other countries at that time) to be money-lenders and tax collectors. They were forbidden to farm and to pursue various careers, and restricted to mercantilism, trades and finance (Christian belief forbade Christians to lend money; furthermore, tax collectors were hated, so it was convenient to make "outsiders" -- Jews -- do the dirty work!).

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 09:03 PM
Whoah! This thread's all over the map! :crazy:

But, nice post, Cady.

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 09:06 PM
-----------------------------
Until a few hundred years ago, Ashkenazim (Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe) As a group, the Ashkenazi Jews register the highest IQ's on the planet, BTW.

Incidentally, I'm not Jewish. I'm not into religions, although my first wife was Jewish, FWIW. In Prussia, special military commissions were created to choose the names. It became common that the poorer Jews were forced to adopt simply bizarre names or even derogatory, offensive ones. Among those created by Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann were:

Ochsenschwanz ("oxtail")
Temperaturwechsel ("temperature change")
Kanalgeruch ("sewer stink")
Singmirwas ("sing me something") [citation needed] There was a joke about a Jewish man who came home from the official registering. His wife asked, "So what is our new surname?" He replied, "It is Schweissfuss" (Sweatfoot).

"What????", she cried. "Couldn't we do any better than Schweissfuss???"

He shook his head and said, "No, it took all my money to get the 'w' inserted into the name". (Which means that the original name given was "scheissfuss" or "shitfoot")

;)

Mike

Neil Mick
01-18-2007, 09:06 PM
In this case, I *will* make the distinction that the call was made at the highest level of government, not by the common people.

Alert the media! I can see the headline!

:D MIKE SIGMAN ACKNOWLEDGES REALITY
(but, just this once) :D

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 09:08 PM
Whoah! This thread's all over the map! :crazy: OK, Folks... back to hating Bush and the US. ;)

Cady Goldfield
01-18-2007, 09:18 PM
OK, Folks... back to hating Bush and the US. ;)

If it would make you feel better, everyone can hate someone else for a while. We could pick apart some other superpower that has its hands in everyone else's national bidness. You choose! :)

BTW, "Sigman" is a common Jewish name, adapted from Siegmann, the Germanic form. You might be surprised if you get your DNA tested... ;)

Mike Sigman
01-18-2007, 09:27 PM
If it would make you feel better, everyone can hate someone else for a while. We could pick apart some other superpower that has its hands in everyone else's national bidness. You choose! :)I think it should be the ones who really do deliberately harm other countries. The ones like Syria, Russia, China, Iran, Sudan, France, North Korea, and a few others. What I like is the way European self-loathing is such that they always look to fall on their own sword instead of fighting the people who really do do bad things to people.

However, World War I had the weirdest impact on Europe and many western Europeans... it's like they went crazy. Couldn't bring themselves to really even fight World War II. The "appeasement" process and "hate ourselves" attitude both took place after the *massive* population losses of World War I, the "Great War", the "Final War". But then again, maybe the bickering Europeans have always been like this. I know the Great War destroyed a way of life that, while brutal to the underclasses, had an upper class that will probably never be equaled. Many children of the rich could speak five or six languages by the time they were 7 years old. Some court scribes could take dictation at a spoken level for up to 50 languages. The educational achievements in breadth by some of the wealthy was unparalleled in modern times. ;)

Mike

Cady Goldfield
01-18-2007, 09:52 PM
Syria and Iran definitely have their hands in other nations' bidness, especially in funnelling weapons to Hezbollah. In Sudan, the Arab-Muslim dominated government of which is engaging in wholesale genocide and ethnic subjugation of the country's indigenous black population. The situation there is desperate and dire. But I'd choose North Korea to pick on at this time, because it's under the rule of a monomaniacal looney who lives in splendor while "his" people starve. And he now has nuclear weapons to play with, and could ostensibly wipe out Japan, South Korea and a hunk of China if he has a tantrum.

Cady Goldfield
01-18-2007, 10:00 PM
I know the Great War destroyed a way of life that, while brutal to the underclasses, had an upper class that will probably never be equaled. Many children of the rich could speak five or six languages by the time they were 7 years old. Some court scribes could take dictation at a spoken level for up to 50 languages. The educational achievements in breadth by some of the wealthy was unparalleled in modern times. ;)


A lot of poof people's kids could speak five or six languages by the time they were 7, as well, because they lived in countries that had more than one established culture and language, and because their countries were bordered by four or five other countries with different languages. All of my grandparents spoke at least six languages as a matter of course, in pre-World War I Europe.

But I understand what you're saying. There is no denying that most of the great gifts to the world, in the form of art, architecture, music, mathematics, etc. were from the patronage of the vastly wealthy, not just in Europe, but throughout the Near and Middle East, and Asia. The Moghuls, the Khans, the emperors of China.

There was a "golden age" when culture blossomed, and it gave rise to schools of philosophy, literature, music, art and sciences unprecedented in the Western world. This cultural boom was patronized/funded by aristocracy and the upper classes.

But now there seems to be a malaise in both Europe and North America, where people are turned inward and are more focused on empire and fortune-building, less to patronizing the arts and culture. Maybe democratic republics are not hothouses for cultural enrichment. Monarchy may mean dictatorship, but it can be benign and bring us circuses with our bread! Bring back the monarchy and the Medicis! ;)

Taliesin
01-19-2007, 05:49 AM
Mike

So your argument is that when you use personal abuse you're taking the high road.

But it's only acceptable when you do it.

After all cricising the ignorance of someone who doesn't know the the British Armed forces had not only captured and decoded the Enigma Machine but also won the battle of Britain before the US joined WWII (that's you Mike) is totally unfair

Still it's moved the debate away from 'patriotism' & 'anti-Americanism'

Mike Sigman
01-19-2007, 12:46 PM
But now there seems to be a malaise in both Europe and North America, where people are turned inward and are more focused on empire and fortune-building, less to patronizing the arts and culture. Maybe democratic republics are not hothouses for cultural enrichment. Monarchy may mean dictatorship, but it can be benign and bring us circuses with our bread! Bring back the monarchy and the Medicis! ;)If you listen to a lot of the campaign rhetoric in the US, you can see that it's aimed purely at the emotional reactions of the uneducated and the people who want to "share the wealth".... i.e., the people who should have little to say about the intelligent running of a country. I'm not much of a proponent of real democracy, of course, but then no system is really all that good for everyone, no matter what the claims. The masses are asses. I think a benevolent monarchy is a good idea.... how does "King Mike" sound, BTW? ;^

Mike

Mike Sigman
01-19-2007, 12:48 PM
So your argument is that when you use personal abuse you're taking the high road.If the abuse is against socialist louts, yes.

Regards,

Mike

Neil Mick
01-19-2007, 12:55 PM
There was a "golden age" when culture blossomed, and it gave rise to schools of philosophy, literature, music, art and sciences unprecedented in the Western world. This cultural boom was patronized/funded by aristocracy and the upper classes.

All on the backs of nations and peoples suffering under the yoke of colonialism.

Monarchy may mean dictatorship, but it can be benign and bring us circuses with our bread!

And tyranny, bloody counter-revolution, and "3rd-World'ism." You simply have to look at the bloody history and colonial interference (pre- and post-) of Haiti, for instance, to see what I mean.

Bring back the monarchy and the Medicis! ;)

Might as well ask to bring back Hussein...in a way, he was a Medici of Iraq...except cursed with an appalling sense of artistic taste. :freaky:

Neil Mick
01-19-2007, 12:59 PM
Mike

So your argument is that when you use personal abuse you're taking the high road.

But it's only acceptable when you do it.


If the abuse is against socialist louts, yes.

Regards,

Mike

And, speaking of hints...

Hypocrisy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy)

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Cady Goldfield
01-19-2007, 01:33 PM
I think a benevolent monarchy is a good idea.... how does "King Mike" sound, BTW? ;^


Hm. Then, who would the Court Jester be? :p

Absolute monarchies seem to be on the out, with most turning into constitutional monarchies, with the titular monarch being ceremonial and symbolic, without absolute power. Even the last holdouts -- Bhutan, notably, because it was at the behest of the absolute monarch; and Nepal, because it was the people forcing the king to relent, at "swordpoint." The House of Saud still reigns, but it will be interesting to see what transpires over ensuing decades.

What do you suppose is the catalyst of this trend?

Mike Sigman
01-19-2007, 01:35 PM
Hm. Then, who would the Court Jester be? :pOK, OK, you can have the job, but you have to provide your own uniform. :D

Mike

Cady Goldfield
01-19-2007, 01:43 PM
All on the backs of nations and peoples suffering under the yoke of colonialism.


Well, certainly. History likes to recall the grandeur and glory of the pyramids of Egypt, the Maya and Aztec temples, Moorish and Moghul architecture, mathematics and astronomy, and all that. That the structures were built by slaves and peasants, and that the royal courts that promoted the sciences and arts were supported by the tithes and taxes of the struggling farmers et al., is a given, and not often noted. And yet, those monuments and intellectual gifts are what remain and are lauded and admired. The cost, and who paid it, are not given the same due. The peasants were "sacrifices for the cause." ;)

In more egalitarian societies, mediocrity is the hallmark of their monuments, because such environments do not allow for the focused use of slave labor to carry off great feats, and to

It's a trade-off.

Cady Goldfield
01-19-2007, 01:45 PM
OK, OK, you can have the job, but you have to provide your own uniform. :D

Mike

Hah! This is a Union shop, buster! :p
And anyway, this is the only kind of Fool I'll be:
http://www.fool.com/index.htm?ref=topnav

David Orange
01-20-2007, 06:17 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070119/cx_bs_uc/bs20070119

Taliesin
01-22-2007, 05:00 AM
Does anybody else find it funny that a guy I have no doubt describes himself as a republican thinks royalty is a good idea?

Hogan
01-22-2007, 09:33 AM
Does anybody else find it funny that a guy I have no doubt describes himself as a republican thinks royalty is a good idea?

Well, at least in the UK they make money off of their royalty....

Taliesin
01-22-2007, 11:44 AM
Or, if you take account of the Civil List, vice versa

Hogan
01-22-2007, 01:11 PM
Even taking into acct the Civil List, the UK still makes more money off of the Royals than the other way around. The UK has a pretty good deal.

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 03:22 PM
Oh Lord, how the thread ever wanders! ;)

Pardon this dip back onto the OP, interrupting all the interruptions. :freaky:

Here's MY "alternative proposal" for Bush...back HR 508... The Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME, NOW!

You can send an email to your Congressman supporting the bill, here (http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9264251&type=CO)

And, you can write to Speaker of the House Pelosi, here (http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9264341&type=CU)

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 03:31 PM
And, this just in:

Report: Cheney Rejected Iranian Offer in 2003
In other news on Iran, former Secretary of State Colin Powell"s chief of staff has revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney rejected an Iranian offer in 2003 to help the United States stabilize iraq. According to Lawrence Wilkerson, Tehran also offered to end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

Yeah, I know...more "he said/she said" stuff. I don't take the word of one disgruntled ex-chief-of-staff, as proof of anything. But if more independent sources come up buttressing this claim, it sure would a wrench in the whole "Iran is the thorn in the side to Iraq," line of thinking.

Perhaps, the real problem in Iraq, is W's refusal to employ diplomacy.

A world leader of a superpower, employing diplomacy to get what he wants, and what is best for the majority of ppl.

Imagine that. :eek:

Mike Sigman
01-22-2007, 03:41 PM
Yeah, I know...more "he said/she said" stuff. I don't take the word of one disgruntled ex-chief-of-staff, as proof of anything. But if more independent sources come up buttressing this claim, it sure would a wrench in the whole "Iran is the thorn in the side to Iraq," line of thinking.Sure... that's old news. Iran offered to "help" (which they've verbally offered tons of times and have never really done when it came to it) and they offered to "stop supporting" Hamas and Hezbollah, illegal terrorist groups. How about if I stick a gun to your head, Neil, and offer to put it away if you'll give me your money. Do you understand now why their "offer to negotiate" was ignored? The next time you read where North Korea, Iran, Syria and sundry others are "offering to negotiate", why don't you look at their record of truthfulness in previous "negotiations" before you start screaming about how the Bad Ole US is just being a meany and won't sit down with those peace-loving nice guys?

Why is it that you "liberals" always fall in love with the most repressive, population-killing, illiberal governments and act like they're your best friends?

Look at Hugo Chavez, whom you so deeply love, and now he's just made himself a dictator. Sixty percent of his country is poor, 25% of that number is starving, yet he's giving money away trying to buy influence and he's going to "nationalize" the privately-owned oil interests. Perfect textbook example of what really happens when "liberals" and "socialists" take over. ;)

Mike

Ron Tisdale
01-22-2007, 03:57 PM
Well, socialists anyway ;) and I liked that quip about the armed robbery.
Touche

Ron

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 04:58 PM
Sure... that's old news. Iran offered to "help" (which they've verbally offered tons of times and have never really done when it came to it) and they offered to "stop supporting" Hamas and Hezbollah, illegal terrorist groups. How about if I stick a gun to your head, Neil, and offer to put it away if you'll give me your money.

How about if you stop using metaphors as if whole nations are individuals, with guns?

Do you understand now why their "offer to negotiate" was ignored?

Yes, our President doesn't believe in negotiation...even tho the Syrian's were quite helpful in supplying us with terrorist information, after 9-11.

AG Gonzales thought the Syrian's reliable enough to send them Maher Arar, an innocent man sent by the US to be tortured in Syria (they still refuse to issue an apology, BTW). He took them "at their word" when they said that they don't torture ppl...why shouldn't we take them at their word, when they say that they want to stop the destabilization?

I'll tell you why...because it interferes with the Mike Sigman view of the ME as some sort of backdrop for a "Clash of Civilizations," a "holy war." :disgust: But seriously, Bush doesn't believe in negotiation. It's hardly a "radical" idea to negotiate: US Presidents have been doing it forever...it's probably the reason why we're not little flacks of radioactive ash right now, floating around in what's left of the planet.

The next time you read where North Korea, Iran, Syria and sundry others are "offering to negotiate", why don't you look at their record of truthfulness in previous "negotiations" before you start screaming about how the Bad Ole US is just being a meany and won't sit down with those peace-loving nice guys?


Oh, you mean, like NK legally testing its own weapons, and legally announcing that it was removing the UN monitoring equipment?

Ah, Mike, on with the toothless dogs again? Is your repertoire SO denuded that you have to cook up outright lies, as well?

NK didn't break any laws, in pursuing a nuclear weapon. Sorry, but they were not part of the Test Ban Treaty.

And, Iran is not breaking any laws in pursuing nuclear energy programs. In fact, we just handed India the same technology that we're all in high dudgeon about Iran pursuing the same thing. Iran is perfectly within its rights to pursue nuclear energy...just not nuclear weapons. It will take years for Iran to even come close to a nuclear weapon (if that is what they want).

And anyway, the odds are very good that India will simply give Iran the technology (as they are close, diplomatically speaking), and so the urgency of the whole affair has the feel of cooking up false reasons, to invade.

Sound familiar? To Mike, I suppose not. This must all be news to him.

But to the rest of us who have moved on since 2004: we all remember going to war, propped up on lies and misinformation. Hopefully, more of us out there will know better, next time.

And there will be a next time: it's already being planned.

Neil Mick
01-22-2007, 05:07 PM
But there's that famed Mike Sigman misdirection again. No one responded to this post...a pity, as I see it as the olny "alternative" left to W...

Oh Lord, how the thread ever wanders! ;)

Pardon this dip back onto the OP, interrupting all the interruptions. :freaky:

Here's MY "alternative proposal" for Bush...back HR 508... The Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME, NOW!

You can send an email to your Congressman supporting the bill, here (http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9264251&type=CO)

And, you can write to Speaker of the House Pelosi, here (http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9264341&type=CU)

Mike Sigman
01-22-2007, 05:13 PM
Oh, you mean, like NK legally testing its own weapons, and legally announcing that it was removing the UN monitoring equipment?Gee Neil.... I'm not sure why you keep complaining about the US. Why don't you move to North Korea? You'd fit right in.... the mines. You're really sort of like that American guy they caught with the Taliban, aren't you?

Mike

Neil Mick
01-23-2007, 02:05 AM
Gee Neil.... I'm not sure why you keep complaining about the US. Why don't you move to North Korea?

So typical. (*wildlife doc voice*) When pressed to the wall with all his nonsense, the Wild Wingnut will often employ the standard "if-you-don't-like-it-here-then-why-don't-you-move-to-blah-blah" strawman, in a bleating attempt at escape."

Please. One more reason why I think you're anti-American.

I don't want you to move, anywhere you don't want. You, OTOH...

You'd fit right in.... the mines. You're really sort of like that American guy they caught with the Taliban, aren't you?

Mike

Note to self...ignore Mike's last 2 sentences in posts, as they are generally the dying utterances of a stew of half-digested blog-spew (hey, that rhymes! :D ), and are prone to nonsense.

Taliesin
01-23-2007, 04:34 AM
Why is it that you "liberals" always fall in love with the most repressive, population-killing, illiberal governments and act like they're your best friends?

Like the Way a certain R Regan & G Bush supported one S Hussain (until it was invonvienient).

Michael Varin
01-24-2007, 01:19 AM
I'm not much of a proponent of real democracy, of course, but then no system is really all that good for everyone, no matter what the claims. The masses are asses. I think a benevolent monarchy is a good idea
It seems that too many of us are so comfortable with "archy" that it clouds our vision. Liberty is the answer. It does benefit everyone. The US constitution was an attempt to secure liberty. It was radical for its time but obviously didn't go far enough. Politicians don't even bother amending it anymore, because all they have to do is pay it lip service and then enact any number of anti-American policies.

While watching Bush's state of the union, I couldn't help thinking that it was one of the largest public gatherings of phony, unethical, criminals, yet we continue to act like the basic system is sound and all that is needed is a minor change of personnel.

We have two parties that offer different shades of the same thing. We commonly call socialists "liberals." What are conservatives attempting to conserve? Centralized government? They are both in favor of big government. I call it socialism, but call it statism, or fascism it's all the same, and our country is deep within its grasp.

Here are some quotes from Ludwig von Mises. I highly recommend reading his works.

"Many of our contemporaries are firmly convinced that what is needed to render all human affairs perfectly satisfactory is brutal suppression of all bad people, i.e., of those with whom they disagree.

As soon as the economic freedom which the market economy grants to its members is removed, all political liberties and bills of rights become humbug.

The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.

The essence of statism is to take from one group in order to give to another. The more it can take the more it can give. It is to the interest of those whom the government wishes to favor that their state become as large as possible."