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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Thelasian wrote:
Only IF such events were real and not merely Neocon spin-doctoring. Come on! Get it right, it's a "vast right wing conspiracy" Both the US State Department and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry have said they don't have any evidence of Iranian support for al-Sadr Interesting? But perhaps the military (you know, the numerous guys actually there, on the ground in Iraq) *does* have evidence. His own words and actions are good enough for me. His exile to Iran following his fathers assasination in 1999 is pretty damning as far as an Iranian link and he has openly called for the formation of a Shia Islamic theocracy. and despite all the White House - Pentagon talk about "foreign fighters" precious few have actually turned up Wrong. "Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq How many of the dead are foreign? How many suicide bombers are foriegn? These guys are not surrendering which will upset your data. Sorry, but talking with guys who have been there, they say the foriegn influance in the insurgency is huge. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
In a detailed response with some non-sequiturs and remarkable generalizations on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:13 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote: .... The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated, especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious threat. I spent a lot of years of my life in the business of planned delivery of WMD and prepped for the defense against them. The "overrating" is quite realistic. You don't want to experience them. I'm curious as to the extent of your planning for the delivery of chemical and biological weapons. I'll agree that nuclear weapons are not overrated, but disagree as to chemical and biological. Simply including those with nuclear weapons in the blanket term 'WMD' overrates them a consequence I fear of general ignorance of the specific natures of all three and an inability by many to graps the enormity of the destructive power of nuclear weapons. -- FF |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
I'm curious as to the extent of your planning for the delivery of chemical and biological weapons. I don't know for sure, but I'm sure the F-105 was capable of delivering the MC-1. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
... "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive. A standard right-wing parody of taxation, but it doesn't make much sense. (AFAIK the US social security system is running at a surplus and filling the federal coffers, not the other way around). It ignores that a functioning economy needs investment in commonly held systems and resources --- infrastructure, education, research, maintenance of the law, defense, health care, etc. A combination of underfunding and deficit spending endangers the long-term prospects on economic growth. Indulging in massive deficit spending can, according to the Keynesian logic, help to get a country out of a depression, but it is a strange policy for a supposedly conservative government. I noticed you didn't address the redistribution of resources. Obviously the main function of government is to provide defense, and to a lesser extent infrastructure, areas I would note that the US handles quite competently. But efforts at economic "justice" are misguided and wasteful. Per capita GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist economies of the world are! For example: United States $35991.96 per person Belgium $29127.94 per person Current deficit spending in the Unitied States is the result of a combination of the additional expenses of war and the recent recession. Intelligent government budgets make allowances for the circumstances of the time. Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical. There is nothing practical about the environmental policy of this government. It just chooses to deflect politically inconvenient science with thin arguments. An attitude that has been a regular feature of government policy since Galileo; one can only hope that the US government will admit its errors slightly faster than the Vatican. Having a sound environmental policy is hugely practical. I wonder what the citizens of Texas would have to say about the memory of George W. Bush if the state turned into an inhabitable wasteland. Which errors are you thinking of? I think most Americans believe the United States should participate in global environmental protection, but only in a fair and rational manner. Kyoto demanded a disproportionate impact on the United States, and Clinton signed it knowing full well it would never pass Senate confirmation. President Bush should be commended acknowleging this and putting the treaty out of it's misery! Otherwise, the environment within the United States is doing quite well thank you., with plenty of statistics available to prove it. Jarg |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om: Jim Yanik wrote in message ... (BUFDRVR) wrote in : Emmanuel Gustin wrote: In the case of Afghanistan this was an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more than a transparently flawed excuse I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq? Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq. Before the USA invaded the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad did not control Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad? When and when, respectively? ... "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them. They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They were clear that there was no such connection. That they could FIND no connection. Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they collapsed entirely. Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the invasion. They also made it clear that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support. Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support. I wonder about that airframe Iraq had for "hijack training"... Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers. Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too. Too many people seem too willing to believe the worst about the US and the current administration,and not believe about Saddam's dangers. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Jarg" wrote in message . com... "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ... "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive. A standard right-wing parody of taxation, but it doesn't make much sense. (AFAIK the US social security system is running at a surplus and filling the federal coffers, not the other way around). It ignores that a functioning economy needs investment in commonly held systems and resources --- infrastructure, education, research, maintenance of the law, defense, health care, etc. A combination of underfunding and deficit spending endangers the long-term prospects on economic growth. Indulging in massive deficit spending can, according to the Keynesian logic, help to get a country out of a depression, but it is a strange policy for a supposedly conservative government. I noticed you didn't address the redistribution of resources. Obviously the main function of government is to provide defense, and to a lesser extent infrastructure, areas I would note that the US handles quite competently. But efforts at economic "justice" are misguided and wasteful. Per capita GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist economies of the world are! For example: United States $35991.96 per person Belgium $29127.94 per person Current deficit spending in the Unitied States is the result of a combination of the additional expenses of war and the recent recession. Intelligent government budgets make allowances for the circumstances of the time. Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical. There is nothing practical about the environmental policy of this government. It just chooses to deflect politically inconvenient science with thin arguments. An attitude that has been a regular feature of government policy since Galileo; one can only hope that the US government will admit its errors slightly faster than the Vatican. Having a sound environmental policy is hugely practical. I wonder what the citizens of Texas would have to say about the memory of George W. Bush if the state turned into an inhabitable wasteland. Which errors are you thinking of? I think most Americans believe the United States should participate in global environmental protection, but only in a fair and rational manner. Kyoto demanded a disproportionate impact on the United States, and Clinton signed it knowing full well it would never pass Senate confirmation. President Bush should be commended acknowleging this and putting the treaty out of it's misery! Otherwise, the environment within the United States is doing quite well thank you., with plenty of statistics available to prove it. True enough. For example, in terms of forestation, Belgium lands number 88 in the world rankings, with an indicated loss of net forested area between 1990 and 2000, while the US ranks 85, with a net increase demonstrated in the last decade (source: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicato...indicatorid=79). One group puts out an "Environmental Sustainability Index", which last showed the US coming in at number 45 worldwide...and Belgium at 125 (after those "green" powerhouses, Libya and Uzbekistan...) (http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/rank.html). Sounds like Emmanuel needs to worry a bit more about cleaning his own house (almost literally) before he starts fiddling around with the business of others... Brooks Jarg |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad? When and when, respectively? Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness, then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death; "Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks that killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing certain except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist. Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had even mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was supporting terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began. They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support. Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most liberals fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond Afghanistan and beyond Asia. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. Is this an example of the superior European educational system I've been hearing about? I guess I'll expect you to start spelling "Bush" as "Bu$h" and "US" as "U$" (or would that be "United Snakes"?). Close enough. SMH |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:13:59 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote: Thank you for acknowledging our lack of experience in conquering and occupying. We most certainly did not "conquer" the Phillipines which were simply ceded to the US by Spain after the 1898 unpleasantness. A curious euphemism for a colonial war that immersed US troops in a bitter fight with a resistance movement. It is true that the USA did not conquer the Phillipines on the Phillipinos, but it was a colonial occupier nevertheless. I admit that the USA missed out on the great external colonialist expansion of the 18th and 19th century, but this was hardly out of virtue; it came about because there was plenty of opportunity for internal conquest and extermination. And the success of this form of colonial conquest is visible in the qualification you use: that it is perceived as "internal" indicates how the expansion of the United States beyond the original territories of the thirteen colonies, at the expense of the native inhabitants, has become an invisible colonial expansion due to its relative success. It seems that you've bought into the Kerry/Clinton "lib-speak" solution that the terrorist war is a law enforcement issue rather than a military one. That works for small subversive groups like Bader-Meinhoff or Red Army Faction, but not apparently as well for larger, better financed, ideologically/theologically motivated movements like the jihadists. In strength of ideological/theological motivation, there isn't much of a difference. As for finance, the jihadists may indeed have the advantage, because they can count on the Western greed for drugs and oil. As for "larger", I think the better term is "more widespread", as there is little evidence for large coherent networks. And even that is in doubt, as the R.A.F, and B-M were ideologically akin to many third-world guerilla groups, and such groups could probably count on state support to a larger extent than the jihadists, and probably were better organized, too. Didn't B-M receive support from the East-German intelligence services? Actually, I personally think a comparison between al Queda and with the R.A.F. and B-M has some value, as it highlights the core personnel involved and their immediate acolytes as nihilistic bourgeois radicals. This comparison becomes less valuable when the larger and more popular Palestinian and Iraqi insurgency is considered, where there are genuinely populist roots involved. As for this a law enforcement or military issue, I don't care zilch about what Clinton or Kerry said about it. Common sense says that the best approach consists of a combination of a law enforcement strategy (infiltration with the goal of prevention and targeting apart finance and leadership) and limited scale military operations (to deal with larger groups and installations such as training camps). Large-scale military offensives are an only opportunity for the enemy to exploit the advantages of assymetric warfare, i.e. quite limited forces are sufficient to keep a large military force in constant chase, inflicting damage to it with unpredictable attacks. Iraq is a nice case study. The problem in Iraq is not so simple: the conflict is also contingent upon the creation of conflicting institutions - the American client government against the local tribalist and religious radical structures that are contending for local authority. That does come down to a basic question of who has the most prevalent and consistent level of force available to secure their rule on a local basis. Large scale military operations, with specific and extensive political and intelligence dimensions, are a neccessity to constrain and then marginalise insurgent institutions and insurgent power bases. Without the deployment of a sufficient level of military force, the insurgents are free to deploy violence against any and all threats to their authority, meaning that there is no hope of a transition to a more selective campaign against them. And, you certainly aren't extending your anti-war fervor to a defense of the Sadaam regime for the benefit of the Iraqi people, are you? Ah, but I am not anti-war. I would have been wholly in favour of a military operation to remove Saddam from power, if it had been properly prepared and thought over. The current mess involves the spillage of a lot of blood for probably zero net result, unless you think that the replacement of one dictatorship by another is a worthwhile achievement. I can agree with that, but the basic context of Iraqi consciousness needs to be taken into account. Too many Iraqis are prepared to engage in, and support or tolerate, terrorist actions according to a blindly xenophobic and anti-American, anti-western agenda. The clearest examples of this are the denial of Iraqi agency when insurgents kill fellow Iraqis, and the obsessive desire to blame the Americans for everything. With the prevalence of that kind of political conditioning, and the examples of the bombing of the UN establishment and the routine kidnapping and murder of foreign workers, it's clear that any occupation was going to face intractable problems which stemmed as much from Iraqi prejudices as the actual operation of occupation policy. "Heavy-handed"????? You know full well, that the heaviness of our hand could be considerably greater. We could easily have leveled Basra, Fallujah, Najaf, Tikrit and any strong-hold of resistance which we chose to. Yes, but even George W. Bush is not that stupid. Nevertheless, the US attitude has been more forceful and heavy-handed than was justified. Recent events in Najaf illustrate the point -- why mount a substantial offensive when you know perfectly well that you can't touch the ultimate target, and in the end you will appear to be the loser? It would have been far wiser to back off from the start. I'm not convinced of that. Part of the reason for the recent outburst of violence was that Sadr's milita felt their local hegemony was udner threat from Iraqi institutions such as the re-emergence of the local police. This was a fight sought by Sadr, and I was very suprised to realise how unpopular he was with locals and with some of Sistani's constituency in Najaf (who were very frank with some western journalists over their support for US actions, and the political impossibility of admitting that publically). I will at least give the Americans for deploying force with sufficient discrimination. You have too many illusions. Even the USA's close allies are now having their doubts. Spain has already deserted. Poland has let it be known that it feels cheated and deceived. In Britain Bush is so unpopular that even the leader of the Conservative opposition (usually regarded as a crypto-Republican, and slightly to the right of Dzenghis Khan) has determined that picking a fight with the Neo-Conservatives in the White House can only boost his electoral chances. No, that has more to do with manufacturing a spurious difference in policy to capitalise on public disenchantment with Blair's decision to go to war in the first place. There is little practical domestic support with any form of military disengagement, as distinct from distrust over the decision to go to war in the first place. Nobody believes Conservative governmental policy would have been any different from Blair's. Gavin Bailey -- But, first, want speed. Bart not greedy as all know. 250MHz enough. I attempt use SGI chip in MB. But chip not fit, then I bend pins. Shove in MB hard. Now apply hammer. Yeah, sit down, ****er! Power on, go BEEEEEP! - Bart Kwan En |
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 |