If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:09:03 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote: "BUFDRVR" wrote in message ... Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current government otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con". The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance, to "con-men". This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness. That may be the most foolish thing I've heard today, if not for the entire week. A bit of research would educate you that the "neo-con" movement greatly predates the Bush administration and relates mostly to US/Israel relations. But, then using your rationale of "sound and appearance" you won't mind if I refer to as Belch-eek. Or, maybe Bulgian. Or, pseudo-French. My heartfelt and respectfully submitted suggestion is that you simply let us conduct our politics and refrain from embarrassing yourself. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books ***www.thunderchief.org |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
From "Emmanuel Gustin"
The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance, to "con-men". The so-called neo-cons are more appropriately Jackson Democrats, not Andrew but Henry (although they _could_ be Andrew's, too, at least on foreign policy). Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) was one of the great ones. He and his protoges were dismayed by Carter's foreign policy (and Nixon-Kissinger before him). Jackson was unable to divert the party from its lurch toward accomodation and appeasement in the 1970s, and while he valiantly tried to retain some vestige of the hard-hitting foreign policy party of FDR, Truman and Kennedy, many of his staff bolted to the Republicans when former Democrat Reagan ran for the White House. I suppose Reagan could be called the first neo-con, except that he had strong conservative view on domestic issues, whereas most contemporary "neo-cons" really don't. They are not particularly conservative on domestic political issues. I suppose in that area they might be sort of "South Park" Republicans, who are Rockefeller Republicans with "attitude." I doubt most voters know what their views are on domestic policy issues. Most are Defense Dept. types focused solely on foreign policy issues. Their take on foreign policy is certainly not "conservative" in the traditional sense of the Tafts or Hoover or even Eisenhower. It has been described as "matured Kennedyism," which sounds about right. (Eg, don't go anywhere and pay any price for freedom, go only where you need to and pay the minumum necessary price to get the job done.) Among Scoop Jackson protoges close to Bush 43, the core "neo-cons," if you will, a Tom Foley, former house speaker; Donald Rumsfeld, Sec. Defense; Doug Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense and one of Bush's Iraq policy experts; Elliott Abrams, special assistant to the president on Middle East affairs; and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Reagan's UN ambassador, now out of the limelight, but not without influence. Chris Mark |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
In message , BUFDRVR
writes Fred the Red Shirt wrote: It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal. Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism. There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda... Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat. (One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US) Nidal had a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end? Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack against the U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who knows? By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California. Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually fighting terrorism; Oh, the only terrorists Hussein wanted to fight were those criminally insane mental defectives who failed to recognise that Saddam Hussein was the Way, the Truth and the Life. Basically, anyone who was willing to fight his enemies was Good: anyone whose actions might threaten him or draw too much heat down on him was Bad. The moment Nidal became more of a liability than an asset, he got a nine-millimetre lobotomy. what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was harboring, supporting and working with terrorists. Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us. Life isn't simple or obvious. None of this, by the way, is to imply that Hussein was a blushing innocent, nor that deposing him and putting him on trial is less than desirable. But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat? -- He thinks too much: such men are dangerous. Julius Caesar I:2 Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Dargan wrote:
Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud. You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even liberal critics. If you don't think very well, try to not think too much. At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and absorb everything. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Thelasian wrote:
Too bad they too say that they haven't found the famous "foreign infiltators" So are you saying that Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division is lying when he says "Most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not foreign forces," (see below) Here's the problem with people who don't understand what's going on in Iraq or military operations in general (or who are trying to distort the truth intentionally). Did the 82nd have responsibility for all of Iraq? No, they had responsibility for Baghdad. When Gen. Swannack made his statements was he making them about all of Iraq or just Baghdad? He was making them about Baghdad. Well publisized strikes (both air and ground) in western Iraq have killed numerous foreign fighters transiting *into* Iraq. The presence of foreign fighters in Fallujah is well known. Hell, the most infameous guy we're battling (al Zarkawi) in Iraq is a Jordanian. MOST of Iraq's dissidents have at some time or another been to Iran. I'm sure you can provide proof that *MOST* of Iraq's dissendents have been protected by the Iranian government "at some time or another". We're not talking about a weekend visit here, al Sadr was living under protected status in Iran for 4 years and was returned to Iraq *by the Iranian government*! Does that automatically make Sadr a stooge of Iran? What's that saying; if it smells, looks and acts like a duck, it must be a duck. In fact the current US-installed Iraqi FM is in Iran - I guess hes' a stooge of Iran too? Only if he stays there for 4 years as a guest of the goverment then re-enters the country with the assistance of the Iranian government. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
onald Rumsfeld, Sec. Defense; Doug Feith,
undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense and one of Bush's Iraq policy experts; Elliott Abrams, special assistant to the president on Middle East affairs; and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, You seem to forget the most important name of whole neo con story. Neocons are also known as "The Straussians", .Leo Strauss was the spritual leader and chief ideologist of neo con movement. Many of the neo cons you mentioned above were actually the students of Strauss. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
BUFDRVR wrote:
Mike Dargan wrote: Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud. You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even liberal critics. If you don't think very well, try to not think too much. At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and absorb everything. Ouch! There'll be tears on my pillow tonight. Cheers --mike BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
I don't think anyone has made a case for either of them being involved with the attacks of September 11, or part of the heirarchy of Al Quaeda. Here's where you and the Democratic party aren't paying attention. Al Queada *is not* the only terrorist organization we're fighting. Numerous groups throughout the world have expressed an interest in harming the U.S. and/or our allies and we're fighting *all of them*! Just because you're not connected with Al Queada and/or 9/11 doesn't mean we're going to wait for you to get your act togather and hit us. I'll agree their organizations are as bad and should be dealt with in a similar manner, but not necessarily on the same schedule. The only "schedule" that's important is the one where we hit them before they hit us. Unless you can find a way to tell when they're going to hit us, our "schedule" will be to get you as soon as we can. We got rid of Hussain as soon as we could, with a slight delay in trying to pacify the U.N. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , BUFDRVR writes Fred the Red Shirt wrote: It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal. Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism. There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda... Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in Afghanistan and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was given medical treatment in Baghdad...Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval". Yep, that adds up to providing support to AQ. Franks covers this in his recent book, just as he covered it last night in his speech. Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat. Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to that? A period of some *years*... (One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US) Trying to change the subject? The subject here is Hussein and his support of terrorists--Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Al Zarqawi... Nidal had a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end? Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack against the U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who knows? By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California. Strawman... Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually fighting terrorism; Oh, the only terrorists Hussein wanted to fight were those criminally insane mental defectives who failed to recognise that Saddam Hussein was the Way, the Truth and the Life. Basically, anyone who was willing to fight his enemies was Good: anyone whose actions might threaten him or draw too much heat down on him was Bad. The moment Nidal became more of a liability than an asset, he got a nine-millimetre lobotomy. what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was harboring, supporting and working with terrorists. Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us. If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of terrorists, though. You have acknowledged that he did indeed support terrorists, so what are you arguing about now? Life isn't simple or obvious. None of this, by the way, is to imply that Hussein was a blushing innocent, nor that deposing him and putting him on trial is less than desirable. But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat? Isn't it strange how those who are most huffy about US action against Iraq often put Libya forward as a counterexample, and forget that the action against Iraq is probably the single greatest factor in bringing QaDaffy Duck "in from the cold", so to speak, in terms of his own WMD efforts (and apparently terrorist support as well)? Brooks |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"ian maclure" wrote in message
news On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:55:49 -0600, Ed Rasimus wrote: [snip] But, then using your rationale of "sound and appearance" you won't mind if I refer to as Belch-eek. Or, maybe Bulgian. Or, pseudo-French. Its Wal-Loon-ian. Need I say more? I've noticed this before; for such a swaggering, gung-ho country, many Americans seem very thin-skinned. The half-life from any criticism of any aspect of your country to playground insults seems to be about three posts. Sad. John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
George W. Bush Abortion Scandal that should have been | Psalm 110 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 12th 04 09:40 AM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |