$98 per barrel oil

Gig,

You're full of ****

He may be, but in this case, he has a very valid point, even if you may not
like the sound of it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Actually, aside from the reference to the hastage thing, yo could e
talking about the US o Britain.




You're full of ****, I know it and you know it.

Nope.

You are just trolling.


Nope.


It was kind of fun when you were doing it only as a counter to MX but
now you are just being an asshat.


So killfile me, but I did mean what I said.



Bertie

They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by some
idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for undefined
time in concentration camps (Gitmo).

The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
fights an international, religiously-driven war. The rules of war, so
cut and dried when everyone agrees to wear different-colored uniforms,
behind a flag, get pretty fuzzy when one side hides behind women and
children, and doesn't identify themselves until they pop up holding an
RPG.

This war is quite different from past wars. Thanks to instant
worldwide communication national boundaries mean little. Radical
Islamicists span the globe, and carry on the fight without regard to
nationality. For the first time in history, an enemy is capable
(thanks to this wonderful internet) of carrying on a global war
without any kind of traditional force structure. This means that the
enemy can be literally *anywhere* -- truly a chilling thought.

Gitmo is a POW camp, and POWs are released when the war ends. With
one side so diffuse, and no one empowered to sign surrender papers,
how do you tell when the war is "over"? Your guess is as good as
mine.

How can we address the diffuse nature of the enemy? Aside from the
removal of Saddam, one of the main purposes of the invasion of Iraq
was to concentrate the opposition in one place, under the "flag" of
Jihad. While the Left has labeled Iraq a failure for becoming a
"spawning ground for terrorists", I believe that this was a deliberate
(and quite successful) strategy from the start. Like flies to ****,
the terrorists squandered their one true advantage by geographically
concentrating themselves so that a traditional military could defeat
them.

Of course, there are signs that they are starting to realize their
mistake. The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq illustrates
that the enemy is no longer willing to confront the military head-to-
head, and may simply be melting back into the landscape.

It also may illustrate that the enemy has finally realized that all
they really have to do is wait till November 2008, and they will be
able to march into the Green Zone unopposed. Much like the Viet Cong
in 1974, all they have to do is wait for the US to retreat. (In case
you don't know, by 1975 the Viet Cong had renamed Saigon -- the former
capital of South Vietnam, "Ho Chi Minh City".)

Not that I would expect you to appreciate or understand the often
subtle nature of this worldwide conflict, but you really need to think
a LITTLE before you post. The issues are never as cut and dried as
you apparently believe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq


The what???

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Jay,

The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq


The what???

So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater but you have
reading comprehension problems as well.

He said, "The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq"


http://www.reuters.com/article/middl.../idUSCOL248131

By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since
the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra
troops to stabilise the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on
Monday.

Gig,

So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater

Jeeze, guys, I thought you came from the land of the free and all. Can't we
have an interesting discussion about this without throwing personal insults?
Kind of degrades your arguments if you start doing that as soon as someone
ventures a different opinion.

You don't remotely know me enough to be able to make that statement above. And
it's a typical knee-jerk ugly American redneck reaction of you, too ;-)


...the Interior Ministry said on
Monday.

Gee, I guess that's a truly objective and trustworthy source who would have
nothing to gain from coming to that conclusion, right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Jay,

The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq


The what???

So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater but you
have reading comprehension problems as well.

He said, "The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq"


Didn't rain today, must be the start of a drought.


Bertie

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Jay,

The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq


The what???


The violence has decreased slightly. "The current dramatic drop" thing is
Bush-ese for "we're gonna win this thing"



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

The violence has decreased slightly. "The current dramatic drop" thing is
Bush-ese for "we're gonna win this thing"

Numbers support the lessening violence, and they are not Bush (or anyone
else) driven propaganda.

Fact is, there have been less US and civilian deaths, country wide, for the
past month. A good number less.
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck writes:

The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
fights an international, religiously-driven war.

There isn't any such war.

The rules of war, so
cut and dried when everyone agrees to wear different-colored uniforms,
behind a flag, get pretty fuzzy when one side hides behind women and
children, and doesn't identify themselves until they pop up holding an
RPG.

The safety of democracy, when the rules of war are cut and dried, is put in
grave danger when the rules become fuzzy and indistinct and demogogues claim
to be the only individuals qualified to recognize war when they see it.

This war is quite different from past wars.

Yes: It's imaginary, and the illusion exists only to serve the ends of
political leaders.

Thanks to instant worldwide communication national boundaries mean little. Radical
Islamicists span the globe, and carry on the fight without regard to
nationality.

Radical Muslims are such a small percentage of the world population that they
do not merit a mention. And there are equal numbers of other radicals
carrying out their aggression in the name of other religions.

For the first time in history, an enemy is capable
(thanks to this wonderful internet) of carrying on a global war
without any kind of traditional force structure.

There is no global war.

This means that the enemy can be literally *anywhere* -- truly a
chilling thought.

Especially when you consider how this is the method used again and again by
political leaders throughout history to convert free societies into
dictatorships. Remember what Göring said at Nuremburg?

Gitmo is a POW camp, and POWs are released when the war ends.

It's a concentration camp, and there is no war.

With one side so diffuse, and no one empowered to sign surrender papers,
how do you tell when the war is "over"? Your guess is as good as
mine.

You don't. You pretend that the "war" continues forever, as an excuse to
maintain and augment an ever-growing police state. One day you're "at war"
with Eurasia, and the next you're "at war" with Eastasia.

The "enemy" seems diffuse because it doesn't exist. But the advantage of
having a diffuse "enemy" is that nobody can prove that it doesn't exist, and
so "wars" can be continued forever.

How can we address the diffuse nature of the enemy?

We can't. We should instead insist on a clear identification of the "enemy,"
and a formal declaration of war, if required, with criteria that will
unambiguously identify a win or loss of that war. It has worked throughout
history, and it still works today.

Aside from the removal of Saddam, one of the main purposes of the
invasion of Iraq was to concentrate the opposition in one place,
under the "flag" of Jihad.

The main motivation for the invasion of Iraq was a child's desire to take
revenge for embarrassment of his father.

Like flies to ****,
the terrorists squandered their one true advantage by geographically
concentrating themselves so that a traditional military could defeat
them.

The U.S. has practiced some of the worst foreign policy in history since Bush
was elected. As a result, it is creating "terrorists" where none existed
before. Almost all the goodwill that the U.S. has ever accumulated has been
destroyed by the current President's egregiously incompetent management of
foreign affairs.

It also may illustrate that the enemy has finally realized that all
they really have to do is wait till November 2008, and they will be
able to march into the Green Zone unopposed. Much like the Viet Cong
in 1974, all they have to do is wait for the US to retreat.

The sooner, the better. The U.S. has no place in Iraq, and has many problems
that it needs to solve at home.

Not that I would expect you to appreciate or understand the often
subtle nature of this worldwide conflict, but you really need to think
a LITTLE before you post. The issues are never as cut and dried as
you apparently believe.

What I see is that Göring was right.