Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Why are we in Iraq ? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Why are we in Iraq ?
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lend Me Your Ears. (Eyes)

If you plan to vote in November.

You've gotta read "Where the Right went Wrong"
Written by Pat Buchanan. He was senior advisor to two presidents and used to be a republican. He was the Reform Party's presidential candidate in 2000.

Here’s a quote form the book, speaking of G.W. : “ In the 2000 campaign, he confused Slovenia with Slovakia, referred to the Greeks as the Grecians and flunked a pop quiz when an interviewer asked him to name the leaders of four major nations.”

The book goes on to say Bush knew nothing of foreign policy. The book tells of two men, who were recruited by Condoleezza Rice, Richard Pearle who became chairman of the Defense Review Board and Paul Wolfowitz who became the deputy secretary of defense, they were the best known members of an entourage that called themselves “The Vulcans “ . Of Pearle’s 1st encounter with Bush 43 he wrote,

“ …I knew he was different. Two things became clear. One, he didn’t know very much. The other was he had confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn’t know very much. Most people are reluctant to say when they don’t know something, a word or a term they haven’t heard yet. Not Him “

The very next entry in the book is : “Thus began the tutoring of George W. Bush in Kristol’s “new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy,’ just months before he assumed office a president of the United States.”

Here’s a key piece of information, in the book.

“In 1996, in collaboration with Douglas Feith and David Wursmer, Pearle wrote a paper entitled
“ A Clean Break: A New strategy for Securing the Realm” for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s new prime minister. “ It was “..a new aggressive strategy based on “ the principle of preemption”” with the “..focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

The first 59 pages of this book is better than fiction

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We are in Iraq because the previous dictator of that county sheltered and harbored terrorist who targeted Americans.

We are in Iraq because the war against the Jihadi Terrorist has to be fought somewhere and bringing the war to the enemies home turf is always preferable to fighting them on your own home turf if you have superior forces.

We are in Iraq because the Fascist dictator who ran the place before started three major wars of the twentieth century and he had a son named Uday who enjoyed raping nine year old girls. His second war lasted thirteen years. Now we are at war with Jihadi rapists of little girls and various Baathist scum who will be turned into crudely butchered pieces of chared meat in due time, just like we did to the all of other enemies who in our history who have provoked our angry sword of war.

We are in Iraq for all of the same reasons we where in Germany, France, Italy, North Africa, Japan, and various scattered places throughout the world.

We are in Iraq to fight a noble war for the betterment of mankind and no king, religious leader, or philosopher has ever discovered a way to avoid war.

We are in Iraq because war is the natural condition of humanity. Humans have been fighting wars for millions of years. Most of recorded history is a history of war.

Both Bush and Kerry recieved the same education at Yale University. Both Bush and Kerry were members of Skull and Bones.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say we're in Iraq because of two other countries beginning with I, and one of them probably isn't Iceland.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:
Lend Me Your Ears. (Eyes)

If you plan to vote in November.

You've gotta read "Where the Right went Wrong"
Written by Pat Buchanan.

You be far better served by reading the following:

On War by Carl von Clausewitz
The art of War by Sun Tzu
War Commentaries by Julius Caesar
The Peloponnesian Wars by Thucydides
The Persian War by Herodotus
The Persian Expedition by Xenophon
The Little Red Book by Mao
Henry V by William Shakespeare
Le Mort de Arthur by Sir Thomas Mallory

I believe any study of the present must go hand in glove with a study of the past. These authors have spoken to me through the ages of time to reveal the true nature of the human condition and the nature of war and politics.

I think most of these books would have been on the reading list at Notre Dame where Mr. Buchanan when to School and got a degree, but I am not certain that he was the kind of scholar he claims to be.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ctbzzz,

You sound like someone who spends a lot of time practicing karate moves by himself in front of a floor-length mirror.

Compare and contrast: "We are in Iraq to fight a noble war for the betterment of mankind" and "Baathist scum...will be turned into crudely butchered pieces of chared meat in due time, just like we did to the all of other enemies who in our history who have provoked our angry sword of war."

Uhhh....yep. (KidA whistles, backs away slowly...)

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Someone please let me know how to take someone’s quote from the site and add it to my reply. Or do I just cut & paste .

Richard Dey : Concerning that country that starts with the letter I. You have much insight, wise one. Many people in D.C. know the group “ the Vulcans” has direct connections to, that country which shall not be named. In fact Richard Pearle was once caught speaking via telephone to them, about U.S. security issues. This book tells exactly how they did it. He and his friends, got positions in the defense department and duped the president into carrying out their plan.


Ctbzz : If we can’t learn from the past, we are doomed to relive it.


The war in Iraq is not a noble war. There is no such thing as a noble war. The U.S. historically, has done some horrific things in war also. We are not pure as the driven snow. However, there is a noble aspect to being the only nation establish by divinely inspired men, who drafted a document that plainly states the rights of all humanity. Our leaders need to work to uphold the principles that made this nation great. We became the most powerful nation on earth, and this country with it’s democratic government, has only been in existence for 200years. Compared to other countries, we aren’t even teenagers yet. Even though our leaders have acted as teens. There's nothing that says, if a group of terrorists, from who knows where, has attacked us, we are obliged to engage in a preemptive war. Preemption is like, somebody punched me yesterday so, I’m gonna punch someone before I get punched again. That’s paranoid, school yard stuff. To this day, the assertions that Iraq was even remotely responsible, has not been proved. If we read the analysis of many people who have experience in government we will find the general consensus is no such proof exists. It was all assertions that cannot be proved.

Tonight when Bush speaks he’s not going to talk about the economy that is in shambles. He will talk about how he has protected us. That’s easy. You did not get killed yesterday, that is because I protected you. How ‘bout 1.2 million jobs were lost in the last 3 years, while he was protecting us. All politicians us these tactics of diverting attention away from the real issues.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jouissance
Member
Member # 784

 - posted      Profile for jouissance   Email jouissance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i thought we invaded iraq to show the other korea how badass we are and to let tiawan know they are safe.

first china bumped our spy plane- then we invaded iraq.

so much focus on the middle east but it will all boil down to taiwan.

i am still trying to figure out what Dey thinks italy and india did to agitate the New American Century into focusing on iraq...

Posts: 359 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The sleeping dragon wants Taiwan
Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jouissance
Member
Member # 784

 - posted      Profile for jouissance   Email jouissance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i thought bilbo took care of that. or was it bard?
Posts: 359 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:



Ctbzz : If we can’t learn from the past, we are doomed to relive it.


There is no such thing as a noble war.

I do study the past and learn from it. Have you read any of the following:

Iliad by Homer
The Trojan Women by Euripides
The Prince by Machiavelli
On War by Carl von Clausewitz
The art of War by Sun Tzu
War Commentaries by Julius Caesar
The Peloponnesian Wars by Thucydides
The Persian War by Herodotus
The Persian Expedition by Xenophon
The Little Red Book by Mao
Henry V by William Shakespeare
Le Mort de Arthur by Sir Thomas Mallory

I have read all of these books and believe me some of them get really tedious after a while. Sorry I did not have the rich parents to send me to Yale, but I believe I have been better served by the books that Yale no longer assigns as required reading to our future leaders.

Looks to me that war has been the normal condition throughout history and that it is always better to be on the winning side.

So it would be a good thing if Hitler and the Nazis gained control of Europe and Asia?

So you think the issue of weather it is legal for White people to buy and sell Black people should be left to the individual states?

So that nasty thing that happened 9/7/41 at Pearl Harbor should have been ignored?

So all those nasty things the Nazis were doing in Europe should have been ignored?

So that really nasty thing that happened on 9/11 should also be ignored?

So we should encourage our Aztec friends to start cutting out the hearts of their enemies with obsidian knifes and throwing the bodies down the temple steps, into a cascading waterfall of blood because it was after all, part of their native culture?

Yes, there is such a thing as a noble war and the war we we are fighting in Iraq is, based on my extensive reading of history, one of them.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ctb - You actually read Clausewitz? "On War" is about the worst thing you can be operating on before entering battle.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm glad ctbzz mentioned the Aztecs - they are a tremendous threat to national security right now. They have massive stockpiles of maize.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DeHaan
Member
Member # 2008

 - posted      Profile for DeHaan   Email DeHaan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought we were discussing Iraq. The original title of this posting is, "Why are we in Iraq?".

I do hope, Star Pilot, that you were not looking for a single good reason for the United States to have invaded Iraq, because there are plenty of those. If you're talking about Bush's personal reasons for us being in Iraq, well, perhaps you should ask him. Does it have to do with 9/11? I have my opinions, but they are just those, opinions, not facts. Does it have to do with Terrorism? Well, there I happen to have some facts.

One fact is this, we should not be in Iraq right now, we should have been in Iraq decades ago. Our President Bush is only doing what Clinton never had the guts to do because I believe he was too afraid that a war would make him "unpopular". Talk about our leaders acting like teenagers.

But I digress. The facts about Terrorism in Iraq. I have two brothers, both of which are members of the United States Marine Corps, (yes a department of the Navy, the men's department...heheh, it's a joke, get it? No offense intended), and they both spent time in Iraq, on LAV's (Light Armored Vehicles) policing the Iran boarder, no small job.
I've heard plenty of stories from them both. I'll share a few. Stories about finding schoolrooms full of RPG's and cases of ammunition, grenades, tank shells, etc. These are used school rooms I'll add. Kids went to school and sat on these live muntions while listening to lessons from their teachers.
More about children, on several occasions retreating Iraqi Military would often times use children as "human shields" to keep my brothers and their fellow marines from firing on them. It worked.
One of my brothers also saw Iraqi men, citizens, pulled from their cars and shot by Iraqi Military in order for a quick escape.
At night when they were camped outside of a city they would hear incesant gun shots in the city, and it wasn't until it was too late to intervene that they learned it was members of the Baath party going through the city murdering families that were once Baath members, or had family members in the Baath party that had deserted or been killed, or families that were anti-baath. And by family I do mean Men, women, and children.
This is the kind of government that the people of Iraq have been living with for far more years than they ever should have. The kind of government that only cares about self gain and power and not the lives of the people they govern.
We are in Iraq because the people of Iraq want us there. Every town or city or village that my brothers entered, they were met with a greeting of praise and, yes, even love. The people asked them to stay and keep them safe. This was genuine. You may have heard that it might have been them just saying it because it's what the US soldiers wanted to hear. Don't believe it. It was real. My brothers met them and talked with them, and even played soccer with their children. (Side note here on how well the Iraqis did in the Olympics? Yeah, the children were really good at soccer.)
I'll add to this that both of my brothers agree that being in Iraq was a good thing, and they are both proud of the time they served there. One of them can't wait to go back again for his unit's rotation next year. The other would feel the same, but with a baby due this month he's content to stay at home.

So, if you wanted to know why we are in Iraq you have your reason. Politics set aside, we are in Iraq for a very noble purpose. To free a people from a tyrant and a life of constant fear. To spread the ideals of freedom. Criticize Bush all you want, but to say that we shouldn't be in Iraq is to say that we shouldn't care about the life of anyone that isn't American.

Are there other places worse than Iraq? Perhaps, but you must understand, with only a single country in the world that has soldiers willing to risk their own lives to better the standard of people they have never even met before, who don't speak the same language, and who are members of a country that has long been considered an enemy of the USA, and do it all without expecting to be called a "Hero", you can only save the world one Terrorist-run country at a time.

Posts: 263 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kelcimer
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome DeHaan.
Great post. I hope there's more where that came from.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WarrsawPact:
ctb - You actually read Clausewitz? "On War" is about the worst thing you can be operating on before entering battle.

Before a battle true, before a war (peace time), yes I think it is a vital work on warfare.

Yes, I have read all the books I have put on my list. Mallory was more than a little tedious.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
“The war in Iraq is not a noble war. There is no such thing as a noble war. The U.S.
historically, has done some horrific things in war also. We are not pure as the driven snow.
However, there is a noble aspect to being the only nation establish by divinely inspired men,
who drafted a document that plainly states the rights of all humanity. Our leaders need to
work to uphold the principles that made this nation great. We became the most powerful
nation on earth, and this country with it’s democratic government, has only been in existence
for 200years. Compared to other countries, we aren’t even teenagers yet.”

There is no "noble" war. War is never good. However, I think the point you are trying to
make is that there is never a reason for war, that it is just a matter of sloppy thinking, ala
Asimov’s axiom "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

Well, Asimov was able to cheat by building up strawmen scenarios and knocking them
down by his brilliant pacifist heroes. I have never read how Asimov was going to outclever
150 thousand German soldiers from outside of Stalingrad. Perhaps he had this terribly
subtle plan which 30 years later would have brought the Nazi’s to their knees. Pity about
the thirty years though children could ask their parents “What is a gypsy, what is
homosexual, what is a Jew, a Pole, a Slovakian?” But hey, we would have been spared the
war.

It is an error to think there is NEVER a reason to fight. The Civil War was terrible. It had
reasons which people thought worth dying for. “Violence never solved anything”. Tell that
to the people of Nanjing, Carthage, the Turks of the 13th Century facing the Mongols, the
Armenians of the 20th facing the Turks. It settled quite a bit for them. They would all have
asked for a little more violence, perhaps on their side for a change.

What you might want to say is, “there are two reasons to go to war, for profit (which Europe
is far too familiar with and mistakes that motive for everyone else), and wars for important
strategic and/or idealistic goals (which can also be terrible, but sometimes not).”

America has fought both types of wars, to our shame, but we have, unlike many nations,
fought more then our share of “good” wars. A good war is one with little selfish intent. The
Civil War, the World Wars, The War of 1812, both Iraqi wars. Need I add Bosnia and
Somalia?

Sometimes those noble ideals you admire need a little watering and we know what liquid
that takes. If you aren’t willing to sacrifice for your principles, why are they principles?

Your second point is...interesting. What is the oldest democracy in the world? Which
nation, with preenings of sophistication, has had from 5 to 9 governments in that same time?
If you said the U.S. and France, you guessed correctly. Our government is older then
EVERY OTHER government on the planet, unless you count old Queen Liz and perhaps
some tribal chieftains. From what I remember of biology, an infant is born “tabula rasa”. Is
there some way that Russian, French or Iraqi kids are born knowing more? Or do you
consider having 3 millennia of treachery, ruthlessness, bigotry and viciousness a
commendation to a culture? Chirac has acted as poorly as you imply Bush has.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DeHaan, nice to meet you

flydye, I agree with much of what you said, and you said it much better than I could have.

We can find a lot of reason for going to Iraq. And it can be talked about them for ever. The main reason I posted the question and then quoted the book “Where the Right went Wrong” I was hoping some of you would read it, even if just the first 59 pages. Because the men spoken of in the book had developed a strategy in 1996, for Israel, to oust Saddam from power in Iraq.

“In 1996, in collaboration with Douglas Feith and David Wursmer, Pearle wrote a paper entitled
“ A Clean Break: A New strategy for Securing the Realm” for Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s new prime minister. “ It was “..a new aggressive strategy based on “ the principle of preemption”” with the “..focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

You see, 9/11 was the catalyst they needed. And it had been clear for some time, they could convince Bush to do it.

Of Perle’s 1st encounter with Bush 43 he wrote,

“ …I knew he was different. Two things became clear. One, he didn’t know very much. The other was he had confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn’t know very much. Most people are reluctant to say when they don’t know something, a word or a term they haven’t heard yet. Not Him “

The very next entry in the book is : “Thus began the tutoring of George W. Bush in Kristol’s “new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy, just months before he assumed office a president of the United States.”

DeHaan,I know of the things your brother’s spoke of. My wife has friends who’s sons have been, and are in Iraq. I know of the hopes those people have. Saddam is a bad guy. But he’s not the only one.There are other countries with more distructive capability that he ever had like North Korea

The first cause for us to go after him was WMDs. The U.S. found no evidence of ties between the perpetrators of 9/11, and Saddam. No plan to attack us or his neighbors. No nuclear program, and no WMDs. So Bush declared that Iraq’s liberation was part of a “world democratic movement”. He said we had a “commitment to the global expansion of democracy”. Democracy is the best, even though it’s not perfect. But come on, these countries we are going to impose our philosophies on have been in existence for thousands of years.

Note to flydye45 : I'm talking about how we are really the new kid in town, ( democratic country only 200 yrs old), telling everyone we are the best. We very well could be, but in order to avoid endless wars, we could be more humble about it.

It would serve us well if we understood our place in the history time line, and used more discretion. But some often do not, thinking the cowboy ( shoot’m up bang bang ) way is the best. So the country that was established on the principles of freedom to chose, freedom to not be subjugated to another country’s power, was going to impose democracy through out the world, starting with Iraq.

We should relive history that works. WW 1, The war had been going on for quite a while, the U.S. was neutral. We did not declare war on Germany until her U-boats began to sink our ships in 1917. WW II, England and Europe had been battling Hitler for some time. We didn’t declare war on Japan until Pearl Harbor. Preemptive strikes were the way of Japan against us, and Germany against Poland, but have never been America’s way.

You have to read at least the first 59 pages of that book. Well…, you don’t have to, really.
But I can’t believe how uninformed on this subject I was, until I started to read that book.
I really never cared for Pat Buchanan, but I can see now he is deeply concerned about the direction our country is headed. A true patriot in the sense, he wants us to know what has happened in the past few years that has caused our elected officials to become more concerned about re-election than the people they represent. Bush was lead into this war by people with a dark agenda. I don’t care what it is, all I know is that it is not in the best interest of this country.

The book is very enlightening.
Good is light. Evil is darkness. No light can exist in darkness, but in light we have shadows so we have choices. Life is a struggle between good and evil. There is some good in the worst of us, and there is some bad in the best of us. No one is perfect. I hope we all make the choice this November that is best for our country.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Star Pilot 111:
The sleeping dragon wants Taiwan

So leave it alone and it will most likely continue to sleep.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jouissance
Member
Member # 784

 - posted      Profile for jouissance   Email jouissance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
except that in its sleep it is bumping our spy planes and slurping up all our precious oil...
Posts: 359 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:


There is no such thing as a noble war.

The U.S. historically, has done some horrific things in war also.

Every great nation of history committed huge atrocities.

There is no sinless nation ready to take over the world and rule it according to some moral code and (mis?)-understanding of the laws of physics, and even if there is such a nation, they would not have the ability to do it because in the act they would forfeit their morally pure state by the actions that would be required of them in maintaining control of the violent savages that rule this planet.

Even if this sinless nation you speak of did exist there are only three or four dominant nations on this earth, and as you may have notice right now this current debate about this current war is about how large small this number is going to be.

Every great nation of history committed huge atrocities.

The empire of Ancient Egypt committed horrific atrocities at a place called Megiddo, and many other battles and places inside and outside of Egypt. I remember in one of my Archeology classes at Stanford I was shown a picture of a relief in stone sculpture where the Ancient Egyptians where making a little hill out of the severed penis’ of the Greek pirate Army that was just dumb enough to sail up the Nile too far. Subsequent Greek pirates did invade and take over Egypt for about 1000 years.

The empires ancient Greece fought horrific and lengthy wars. The only thing that makes the ancient Greeks stand out in this regard is their habit of documenting their war atrocities, at times with a degree of candor, but also with a degree of joy, so that future generations could study them and learn about them.

The empire of Rome was all about slavery, crucifixion, and death in the arena, but those nasty violent, foul smelling, vengeful, and superstitious Romans did give us this wonderful alphabet with which we use to communicate, and the also wrote a few useful books on politics that were timeless and started a literary tradition that goes on to this day.

The Empires of China are a long and boring list of warfare and cruelty. They invented paper, a medium similar to this one and they made some nice cloth.

The Empires of India are all about violence and killing. All ancient historical documents from India refer to wars that are the central theme of story, and numerous cruelties and atrocities are committed by both the good guys and the bad guys in the stories.

The Empires of Japan were about savagery and sword fighting.

The Empire of Persia was about war, conquest, rape, castration, theft, and on certain occasion’s vandalism, but Persians did originally invent the idea of Santa Claus in a mutated form so I am willing to forgive if certain arraignments can be met.

The Empires of the Holy Romans was mostly ineffectual but they did chop off more than 1000 German captive heads on one exceptionally bloody day. They kept the Muslims out of Spain and Italy and mounted an ineffectual attempt to take over former territory of the Eastern (Greek) Roman Empire.

The Eastern Roman empire was ruled by cowards. On a certain day sometime around 1435 and ottoman sultan invaded their remaining capital city and had the usual rape, castration, murder party. These people, the Turks took over the empire of the Arabs, and ruled it until a really bad war ended 1918. Their decedents now rule the modern nation of Turkey.

The Empires of the (Arab-Ottoman) Moslems where mostly about castration, enslavement, rape, and battle, banging your head on the floor five times a day, memorizing one or two badly written books, and blowing your retirement savings so that you could run in circles in the middle of the desert sun in circles in the hot desert sun like an idiot. The Arabs did give us the first physics paper and it is at least through the Arabs that we got the Arabic numerals an idea that was critical for developments in technology.

The Empires of the various European states enslaved a lot of Africans, massacred or relocated most of the native propulsion of North and South America. They fought amongst themselves much more violently that they are fighting against our current enemies. They have also fought major wars with the Empires of Japan and German in which they emerged victorious, and a minor war with the Empire of Russia, which was concluded by mutual consent to be a draw.

You can live in a world where there is a lot of violence, a moderate amount of violence, little violence, but not zero violence.

It is not part of the human capacity to create a world wide society with zero violence.

War is inimical to the human condition. It is a problem towards which we have the choice of believing some moral philosophy that performs the simple task of condemning it will make it go away by itself, ignoring al l of the lessons of history, or wait for the Jihadi to attack 100 school houses and fly 10 airplanes into 10 building on one single day.

I say we do what needs to be done and take they war right to the enemy’s front door and eliminate them just like the Egyptians eliminated the Greeks the first time they tried to invade it.

Subsequent invasions of Egypt were very successful, and I am sure it is only an accident of history that the atrocities committed to maintain the peace were not better documented, but maybe people do learn from history and learn to stop writing it.

What is to be done?

We can either let the last 5000 years of history all us to be guided, or we can look at a war (really a side battle of a much greater war that ended in a draw) we lost in 1972 be the guide to all future conflicts.

History and War did not begin in 1965.

You can either win this war or buy yourself another 300 years of peace, or you loose this war and have another 300 years of war. The only way to end the type of war we are fighting is by ending the society that produces our enemies who take down airliners, cut the throats of fight attendants, and murder children on their first day of school.

Your moral code transmitted to these guys in whatever form you choose will not stop these killers. We need to destroy terrorism at its source, probably violently.

I propose to you sir that there is no moral philosophy that you can offer to these people in oral, written, or electronic form that is going to force them to stop acting like this.

If you would have studied history you would now that there are three ways civilization has dealt with the problem of war: more war, bribery, and resorting to the supernatural.

More warfare has sometimes worked in the past, but I know of no occasion in history where bribery, or resorting to such supernatural things such as moral philosophy, has worked at keeping the savages at bay. To defeat the savage you must become a better savage, and sometimes even that is not enough.

We are already making huge cemeteries in Iraq, and creating a V.A. medical problem for them that is about 10,000 bigger than the VA problem we are going to have at the end of this war. I think this is a good start toward solving the problem with Jihadi terrorists. More cemeteries and VA hospitals, future generations can have picnics in the cemeteries, and much new medical information will be learned in the new VA hospitals that will be constructed to people who like to take machine guns into churches and schools.

At some point our enemies will look at all their cemeteries, look at all the one armed, one legged, and one eyed, partially or completely insane combat veterans and decide to console themselves with whiskey, even an stranger religion, video games, pornography, legal and illegal drugs, and Arabic versions of Lost in Space, and I Love Lucy.

Rome won by killing the violent ones and turning the rest of them into Romans of one sort or another.

Right now your civilization is fighting to get a hold a resource that is vital, and the environmentalist left has stopped development of all new and realistic energy technology thirty years ago.

You are financing your enemies by buying oil from them when you should be building advanced nuclear power plants and using cheap electricity created by them and cheap coal to create gasoline, diesel oil, aviation fuel, natural gas, and the like.

Instead I just get a promise about renewable energy that never seems to energize.

Sir you live in a dream world and this dream world will threaten your health if it continues long enough. The real world that I offer you is maybe even worse, but at least if you study and understand history you will accept what little wisdom I can offer you, you can use your natural cunning to survive a little longer.

It is a violent brutal, nasty world out there, always has been, always will be.

Get used to it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jouissance:
except that in its sleep it is bumping our spy planes and slurping up all our precious oil...

Apologize, invite them to tea, learn to stay out of their air space without their permission, and build some new nuclear power plants that turn coal into gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, natural gas, and maybe hydrogen gas.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star Pilot 111,

quote:
Preemptive strikes were the way of Japan against us, and Germany against Poland, but have never been America’s way.
Actually the US has a way of precipitating conflict with Latin America. Most infamous would be General Tyler (later President Tyler) heading into and then beyond disputed territory into Mexico proper. This action prompted a conflict in which the US annexed the entirety of what is now the South West United States.

Jouissance,

quote:
first china bumped our spy plane- then we invaded iraq
uuuhhhh [Smile] Care to explain this? This is a fascinating claim.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
ctbzzz,

You sound like someone who spends a lot of time practicing karate moves by himself in front of a floor-length mirror.

Compare and contrast: "We are in Iraq to fight a noble war for the betterment of mankind" and "Baathist scum...will be turned into crudely butchered pieces of chared meat in due time, just like we did to the all of other enemies who in our history who have provoked our angry sword of war."

Uhhh....yep. (KidA whistles, backs away slowly...)

No I spend all day reading books about history.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ctbzzz,

And your reading leads you to the conclusion that the most effective way to wage the "war on terror" is by killing the terrorists in carload lots? Is there more?

Potemkyn

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
VampireHunter
Member
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for VampireHunter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi star pilot,

However uninformed the president was at the beginning of his first term, I think it is fairly easy to see that he has come a long way since then. His public speaking is probubly the most obvious improvement, but his policies have also changed from a vague reliance on traditional republican values with a focus on tax cuts to a redefinintion of american foreign policy.

The reason for this change actually comes from very intelligent strategy that Bush used from the start of his campaign: to surround himself with the most intelligent and most expert people that he could find. He listened to the Vulcans because they were intelligent and were able to come up with a good plan. Their plan worked too. Iraq fell in one of the shortest military campaigns ever. Bush wasn't tricked or duped by "evil men" into invading Iraq, he did it because he thought that was a good step for the country to take.

As to "imposing our philosophy" and being the new kid on the block, that has always been Americas policy. Ever since we were founded, we have encouraged the rest of the world, both through force and through diplomacy, economics, example etc to become democracy's as well. Iraq is not the beginning of Americas world democratic movement, but more of the clean up phase. China is the only large country that has not yet become democratic, but we will be able to reign them in with economics most likely.

Imposing your philosophy on others is pretty much a required stage in having a philosophy, because philosophical thought assumes that there is an absolute right and wrong way to do things.

WMD was not the main reason for going into Iraq, they were a big part of that reason, but the reason was that Iraq was working against America. They did many things that we didn't like and it was really all those reasons rolled into one that was why we went in against them. There were so many reasons we had to go in to Iraq, that despite the fact that some of the information we had was not accurate, there is still enough to justify the entire endevor.

Posts: 69 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
VampireHunter
Member
Member # 882

 - posted      Profile for VampireHunter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ctbzzz,

History is certianly important, but it is not the only thing to take into account when trying to develop strategies about the future. New technology and organization make it impossible to take lessons for the present solely from the past.

I agree that it is in human nature to fight wars, but the point is entirely irrelevant, we fight wars because it is the best option for ourselves, not just because our fathers did it.

Posts: 69 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The main reason was that the Bush administration believed that an invasion of Iraq and the creation of a democratic government there would do more than anything to stabilize the Middle East, and that stabilizing the Middle East was crucial for America's economy and security.

The Vulcans did a good job planning for the war. They did a bad job planning for the postwar occupation and reconstruction.

Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DeHaan
Member
Member # 2008

 - posted      Profile for DeHaan   Email DeHaan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have one more thing to add here. Everyone keeps talking about how flawless and swift the Iraqi campaign went. What they don't discuss is why. Some people give the credit to the Vulcan's and other military leaders, some to our technology. Well, I have news.

This from the front, yes, from my brothers and another friend who was with the 1st Marine Division during the invasion of Baghdad. Baghdad was one of the few places that actually put up a fight, and even that little battle was pathetic in comparison to even the smaller engagemenst of major wars. My brothers never saw anything serious, just Iraqi troops running away. And what were they running from? USA troops, yes, but they were running away from their own caches of munitions. The amount of weapons that my brothers and their fellow marines in the 4th Light Armored Reconaissance Battalion discovered in abandoned military bases and holes in the ground was disgusting. US soldiers are still finding these weapon's caches today.
A direct quote from my brother as he spoke to us one night at dinner, "They (the iraqi's) could have rocked our world if they had put up a fight. But they just ran."
The point here being that Saddam's own men had no desire to fight for their own country. When it came down to the individual soldiers, they didn't want to win.
So really we owe Saddam and his tyranical Regime the credit of our "perfect" invasion.

What we're seeing now in the post-invasion occupation is little groups of terrorists and extremists wreaking havoc on their own civilians and now and then getting some of our troops. Sad isn't it?

Posts: 263 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DeHaan,

What are your brothers' opinions of Al-Sadr?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by VampireHunter:
ctbzzz,

History is certianly important, but it is not the only thing to take into account when trying to develop strategies about the future. New technology and organization make it impossible to take lessons for the present solely from the past.

I agree that it is in human nature to fight wars, but the point is entirely irrelevant, we fight wars because it is the best option for ourselves, not just because our fathers did it.

You ignore the lessons of the past at your peril.

New technology always cuts both ways.

Sometimes the old ways are really better.

My reading of history indicates that my military should break out some sabers and cutlasses from an old military museum and learn the fine art of decapitation and impaling. We could start a new military specialty and I think it would look really cool if our soldiers on TV were forced to wear, carry, and occasionally uses sharp pieces of steel.

You take a shot at us with an AK, SK, RPG, or IED and this is the fun and exiting thing we do in return for your favor, using sharp steel and physical strength. Specialists, as always, can be trained to deal with the grim business.

When men like this work long enough and hard enough at their job, new innovations are born from the rivers of blood that they unleash to create this cherished thing we call peace.

Make it a new show on global satellite TV or not as the propaganda ministers dictate.

We are fighting with head hunters are we not, or did I miss some new atrocity in the news?

My reading of history tells me that while explosives and bullets can be employed with only certain amount of accuracy. That the old cavalry saber and naval cutlass, or perhaps bayonet, is the real weapon our enemy’s should be dying by in this war.

We can separate the guilty from the innocent with ease.

The Romans, The Greeks, The Egyptians, The Chinese, The Holy Romans, The Japanese, The Germans, The Persians, and assorted gangster pirate kingdoms that have existed throughout time instinctively knew that sharp steel was the only way to bring peace, and then only for a brief duration before bad habits were picked up again.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by potemkyn:
DeHaan,

What are your brothers' opinions of Al-Sadr?

He is an idiot preacher.

He has recently been kicked out of his favorite church by another preacher. He may or may not find another suitable church to set up shop.

Many of his parishioners are either wounded war veterans, or widows and orphans.

He has a very frustrated martyr complex.

Many of his, surviving, followers have a frustrated martyr complex.

Many of his surviving followers need a great deal of medical attention, or are recovering from grievous wounds, and his church is going to need to set up a big hospital soon.

If your read Beowulf I believe that he most resembles the character Unfreth son of Ecglaf, and I believe that this man will and his surviving followers will grow into this role over time.

He has many enemies besides the Americans.

He bangs his head on the ground five times a day, and like to vacation at a certain point in the middle of the desert where he will run in circles under a hot desert sun.

He mistreats women and advocates (actually insists) that other men take up the practice of abusing women.

He has a fascination with leading unsuccessful gun battles.

He is still very dangerous.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous24:


The Vulcans did a good job planning for the war. They did a bad job planning for the postwar occupation and reconstruction.

The Vulcans did a very good job of planning for after the war.

Do you really believe that a mere plan, which is only a few pieces of paper and some computer files, can stop a war?

The plan was to fight the war on the terms the enemy gave us.

When asked what his plan was on the day of Waterloo the Duke of Wellington responded that he was going to wait for Napoleon to attack his forces and then respond accordingly.

He did now write down 1000 page document in Latin to describe how to win the war against the French. Present it to Napoleon, and declare himself the victor in the war, he knew from his military training that plans do not prevent wars.

He just looked at the situation, his men, the weapons of the time, previous French Tactics, the enemy, and waited for his allies (The Germans) to come to his aid.

Wellington picked a place, picked the weapons, set up a logistical system, and stood his ground, but the essence of his plan was that he was going to stand with his Army in Belgium and wait for Reinforcements from Germany and then go hunt down that stupid little Corsican piece of rotten meat. Napoleon knew the plan and hoped that he could knock off Wellington and those nasty Germans afterward, who previous to experiencing life under Napoleon were only a moderately grumpy race of people.

France and England have been friendly ever since that glorious day. There has been some nasty language, literary barbs, and provocative artwork, but as far as I know the French and English started living together in peace after the battle of Waterloo.

There has been nearly 700 years of war between them, but it all ended at the battle of Waterloo. The war between England and France started when some Danish Pirates invaded both England and France.

You will find thousands of pages of military history about battles that looks like planning, but on the day of the big battle, the questions are always the same.

Good battle plans run about a two pages, but great ones require only a single sentence.

You wait for the enemy to attack, or you catch him planning an attack, and you use sharp steel to create rotten meat out of the living bodies of your enemies.

That would be my plan if they ever let me go to the Vulcan training academy at Yale.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ctbzzz
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
I'm glad ctbzz mentioned the Aztecs - they are a tremendous threat to national security right now. They have massive stockpiles of maize.

Actually the Aztecs are on our side of this war, but it always fun to remind your enemies of your ally’s previous bad habits.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DeHaan
Member
Member # 2008

 - posted      Profile for DeHaan   Email DeHaan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just as clarification, what ctbzzz wrote in comment to

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by potemkyn:
DeHaan,

What are your brothers' opinions of Al-Sadr?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was his opinion, not my brothers'. I'll hafta ask and get back to you on that. That is, if you're seriously interested.

Posts: 263 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Star Pilot 111
Member
Member # 1972

 - posted      Profile for Star Pilot 111     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ctbzzz quote
------------------------------------------------
That would be my plan if they ever let me go to the Vulcan training academy at Yale.
------------------------------------------------

" The Vulcan Training Academy "
I love it.

Posts: 337 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Star Pilot thanks for the response.

I offer you some advice from OSC himself. Pat Buchanan is a smart man. You don't get to where he is by being stupid. But he sees life through a specific lens (which includes some jealousy and bitterness. "Oh why aren't the voters smart enough to put me in office?"). So go ahead and read his book. He did another book on demographics which made some good and valid points.

Let me say that the "Vulcans" had a choir. They were a long list of Democrats in the '90's who stated clearly and concisely that Saddam had to go. I have to assume that they were men and women of principle stating what they thought to be the case. Were they all lying? Were they tricked by neocons? So more then a cabal of jew...urm neocons were at the very least aware and discussing this issue, if not tacitly supporting it when their guy was in office.

I am sorry they did not spend the political capital to actually fight this war they took so seriously (until they were out of power). Instead their priorities consisted of remaking our society (which is another debate).

As far as there being lots of places where we could "export democracy". Yes there are. Can we morally justify invading the Sudan just like that? How about Nepal?

We picked Iraq for three reasons. First, there is a certain mixture of idealism and strategic interest. Yes we want to reform Iraq because we were such ****s before supporting corrupt regimes (though I think the Shah of Iran was worlds better then the Ayattolahs). So we kind of owe the region. As a bonus, it causes a debate of cultures in the region which makes the ONE VOICE of wahabbism to actually have to debate and justify itself, a hard task. It was in our stategic interest to remove Saddam, if for no other reason then the lie of blood for oil. The other bonus was we put the whole region on notice. If you harbor folks who kill us, we may not be able to make you into a democracy (though we may try), but we CAN make you into an anarchy. Surprise surprise, Saudi is getting tough on it's militant.

Secondly, we had causi belli. Saddam had given us ample reasons by breaking the cease-fire agreements. We had never stopped being at war with him, and the shooting of our aircraft is a pretext for war in most places. He had done it for almost a decade. We do not have that in the Ivory Coast.

Third is a moral imperative. If we, as a nation that believes in human rights, AND we are offered a place where we can further them with justifications and we DON'T, what does that say about us as a nation? Who really believes in human right, us or France? Who is paying a price?

Regarding the post war game: We try things, they work or don't. In most of the nation, they seem to. Najaf, Fallujah, Tikrit and Baghdad are the only real problem areas, because the enemy can be faceless there, they are political strongholds, and they have Baathists. We were fighting in Fallujah. I would have leveled the place myself, but we just withdrew. They now live in the Baathist misery they had before. But now the people can leave, get jobs and see the difference in how Americans treat peopld and how Baathist and extremists do. That is a hearts and minds thing. It took Germany 5 years to rehabilitate. How about giving it a year or two before you declare defeat?

We are a political 'brand'. And we have lots of people wanting to buy the Franchise. But it is tough to make it work. Some places don't want to include the full menu and then they wonder why they fail, e.g. economic without political freedom, freedom without personal responsibilities, a useful diplomacy without a military. We have not had to export it forcibly to too many places.

ctbzzz: That is a really good reading list, and many of us on this list have probably read at least on or two of those books, with at least a grasp of some of their principles. And yet it is possible to come to slightly different conclusions. I agree that human nature hasn't changed, but our idea of "Society" has. A tribesman sees only his fellow tribesmen as "real". The march of civilization has been about seeing more then just your fellow villager as real. There comes a point (Internationalist Kerry Nod) where this can go too far, but you don't tend to war with "fellow villagers". Thus we haven't fought Europe for decades. Being democracies makes them real. The same goes for Japan. The Chinese still aren't "real" to a lot of people (and they seem to feel the same about the "gwai lo", but want "real" status for themselves. Another debate!)

So the perceptions of humans can change. But you are correct that there will always be an element that "discovers" ruthlessness and crime as a way to wealth and power. We have ways to deal with them too...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DeHaan,

I am quite serious. It would be extremely interesting, for me at least, to hear what some American soldiers have to say. I appreciate you asking for me.

Potemkyn

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ctbzzz,

Thanks for your answer to my question, though, I think of Al-Sadr in a very different light.

quote:
He is an idiot preacher.
Don't underestimate your opponents. Idiot preachers die when they cross the US military. He hasn't.

quote:
He has recently been kicked out of his favorite church by another preacher. He may or may not find another suitable church to set up shop.
By "kicked out" do you mean "willingly left after holding out against the most feared military in the world"? He left and I seriously doubt the US's ability to prevent his return. The only one who could really do that is Al-Sistani and he is 73 years old and sickly. The US can't depend on him for too long.

quote:
Many of his parishioners are either wounded war veterans, or widows and orphans.

There are many of those in Iraq. Many ants can kill an elephant. And these outcasts have given the US a bloody nose.

quote:
He has a very frustrated martyr complex.

Many of his, surviving, followers have a frustrated martyr complex.

I think the US should have obliged him and killed him MONTHS ago but they haven't and seem unable to do so. He's much more dangerous alive than dead.

quote:
Many of his surviving followers need a great deal of medical attention, or are recovering from grievous wounds, and his church is going to need to set up a big hospital soon.
And yet they have beat the US twice? These guys took control over large and important areas of Iraq during an occupation. TWICE. How can this guy be an idiot and still do this? How can his followers be simple fools who are all shot up when they held the US at bay for weeks?

quote:
If your read Beowulf I believe that he most resembles the character Unfreth son of Ecglaf, and I believe that this man will and his surviving followers will grow into this role over time.
Sadly, I am not well read in Beowulf. If you could flesh this out for me, I'd appreaciate it.

quote:
He has many enemies besides the Americans.
Can they stand against him though?

quote:
He bangs his head on the ground five times a day, and like to vacation at a certain point in the middle of the desert where he will run in circles under a hot desert sun.

He mistreats women and advocates (actually insists) that other men take up the practice of abusing women.

That's a very unflatering view of Islam. Your general dismissal of Islamic culture and religioin as "banging his head on the ground five times a day" and "abusing women" reflects poorly upon you and this forum. I would suggest that you change the wording of what you've written.

quote:
He has a fascination with leading unsuccessful gun battles.
In what way are these battles unsuccessful? Al-Sadr wields more power than ever before. The US wins when Al-Sadr dies. He is alive. Thus, the US hasn't won. Perhaps he hasn't won his battles in the sense that he has beaten his military enemy, but he certainly hasn't lost.

quote:
He is still very dangerous.
I agree completely [Smile] .

Potemkyn

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of dangerous leaders, where's Osama Bin Laden?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is an idiot preacher.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't underestimate your opponents. Idiot preachers die when they cross the US military. He hasn't.


ctbzzz is showing his anti religious bias here. Tell it to Pope Urban, the Ayatollah Khomenhi, and Muhammoud. As far as al-Sadr, he's been wounded once. If we were less multicultural and more ruthless, him, that shrine and all his adherents would be a small pile of rubble. He's takes advantage of our weaknesses.


"By "kicked out" do you mean "willingly left after holding out against the most feared military in the world"? He left and I seriously doubt the US's ability to prevent his return. The only one who could really do that is Al-Sistani and he is 73 years old and sickly. The US can't depend on him for too long."

By willingly left, do you mean, surrendered after having a thousand of his adherents wounded or captured and three hundred more killed in three days of fighting. I missed the huge number of American casualties from this fight... It is obvious that he cannot raise the populous, and he cannot fight. So what does that leave him?


"There are many of those in Iraq. Many ants can kill an elephant. And these outcasts have given the US a bloody nose."

As they die. However, as OSC said, we need to kill their stories as well as their men.


"I think the US should have obliged him and killed him MONTHS ago but they haven't and seem unable to do so. He's much more dangerous alive than dead."

He has been in hiding or besieged in places we aren't allowed to go. Shades of Cambodia. Get Kerry in here so he can do the illegal.


"And yet they have beat the US twice? These guys took control over large and important areas of Iraq during an occupation. TWICE. How can this guy be an idiot and still do this? How can his followers be simple fools who are all shot up when they held the US at bay for weeks?"

See above posts


"Sadly, I am not well read in Beowulf. If you could flesh this out for me, I'd appreaciate it."

Famous and successful dad trying to ride on his coat tails. al-Sadr (son of Sadr) is his only claim to fame besides causing 5 Jenny Craig therapists to commit suicide in frustration.


"Can they stand against him though?"

You are giving this guy way too much credit. What is happening is this. There are three groups vying for power. The "government" has the military, but has to prove it's a leader. There are a number of private armies and they want to do the bannana republic coup. Unfortunately, they face the U.S. military, which is a failing prospect. Everyone else is HUSBANDING their forces hoping the Americans leave soon. This nut job is the only wasting his men. The Army is trying to disband all these forces so the government has the only army.
The third is outsiders who want things to fail and work ceaselessly to do so.


"That's a very unflatering view of Islam. Your general dismissal of Islamic culture and religioin as "banging his head on the ground five times a day" and "abusing women" reflects poorly upon you and this forum. I would suggest that you change the wording of what you've written."

A bit harsh, but I refer you to "The Trouble with Islam", by I forget her name. She deals with several problems with the religion and how she and her mother were treated, as well as others. To say that Islam as currently practiced by the majority of their members is abusive to women is pretty true. I heard on the news that an Arabic woman was kept prisoner by her brothers for years. Her wealth was appropriated by them, and she was reduced to shoving some jewelry up her womb to keep them from stealing that as well. Some surgery was necessary to save her life. I could go on at length.(Snap) that to Islam!


"In what way are these battles unsuccessful? Al-Sadr wields more power than ever before. The US wins when Al-Sadr dies. He is alive. Thus, the US hasn't won. Perhaps he hasn't won his battles in the sense that he has beaten his military enemy, but he certainly hasn't lost."

Arabs tend to favor winners. He loses most of his forces every time he fights. Someone over there is going to do the math eventually.


I agree completely .


As do I. But don't overestimate this guy.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1