| 1st January 2007 04:41 AM |
|
|
| sweetcharmedlife |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
are you suggesting I should hang myself? 
Only for entertainment purposes Gazza. Nothing malicious.
[Edited by sweetcharmedlife] |
| 1st January 2007 05:54 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Who shall we hang next?
I have a hankering for all the kids on Laguna Beach.
[Edited by corgi37] |
| 1st January 2007 06:15 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness
By Robert Parry
December 30, 2006
Like a blue-blood version of a Mob family with global reach, the Bushes have eliminated one more key witness to the important historical events that led the U.S. military into a bloody stalemate in Iraq and pushed the Middle East to the brink of calamity.
The hanging of Saddam Hussein was supposed to be – as the New York Times observed – the “triumphal bookend” to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. If all had gone as planned, Bush might have staged another celebration as he did after the end of “major combat,” posing under the “Mission Accomplished” banner on May 1, 2003.
But now with nearly 3,000 American soldiers killed and the Iraqi death toll exceeding 600,000 by some estimates, Bush may be forced to savor the image of Hussein dangling at the end of a rope a little more privately.
Still, Bush has done his family’s legacy a great service while also protecting secrets that could have embarrassed other senior U.S. government officials.
He has silenced a unique witness to crucial chapters of the secret history that stretched from Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979 to the alleged American-Saudi “green light” for Hussein to attack Iran in 1980, through the eight years of the Iran-Iraq War during which high-ranking U.S. intermediaries, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, allegedly helped broker supplies of war materiel for Hussein.
Hussein now won’t be around to give troublesome testimony about how he obtained the chemical and biological agents that his scientists used to produce the unconventional weapons that were deployed against Iranian forces and Iraqi civilians. He can’t give his perspective on who got the money and who facilitated the deals.
Nor will Hussein be available to give his account of the mixed messages delivered by George H.W. Bush’s ambassador April Glaspie before Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Was there another American “green light” or did Hussein just hear what he wanted to hear?
Like the climactic scene from the Mafia movie “Casino” in which nervous Mob bosses eliminate everyone who knows too much, George W. Bush has now guaranteed that there will be no public tribunal where Hussein gives testimony on these potentially devastating historical scandals, which could threaten the Bush Family legacy.
That could have happened if Hussein had been turned over to an international tribunal at the Hague as was done with other tyrants, such as Yugoslavia’s late dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Instead Bush insisted that Hussein be tried in Iraq despite the obvious fact that the Iraqi dictator would receive nothing close to a fair trial before being put to death.
Hussein's hanging followed his trial for executing 148 men and boys from the town of Dujail in 1982 after a foiled assassination attempt on Hussein and his entourage. Hussein's death effectively moots other cases that were supposed to deal with his alleged use of chemical weapons to kill Iraqi civilians and other crimes that might have exposed the U.S. role.
[For details on what Hussein might have revealed, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege or Consortiumnews.com’s “Missing U.S.-Iraq History” or “The Secret World of Robert Gates.”]
Thrill of the Kill
Some observers think that Bush simply wanted the personal satisfaction of seeing Hussein hanged, which would not have happened if he had been sent to the Hague. As Texas governor, Bush sometimes took what appeared to be perverse pleasure at his power to execute prisoners.
In a 1999 interview with conservative writer Tucker Carlson for Talk magazine, Bush ridiculed convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker and her unsuccessful plea to Bush to spare her life.
Asked about Karla Faye Tucker’s clemency appeal, Bush mimicked what he claimed was the condemned woman’s message to him. “With pursed lips in mock desperation, [Bush said]: ‘Please don’t kill me.’”
But a more powerful motive was always Hussein’s potential threat to the Bush Family legacy if he ever had a forum where he could offer detailed testimony about the historic events of the past several decades.
Since stepping into the White House on Jan. 20, 2001, George W. Bush has made it a top priority to conceal the history of his father’s 12 years as Vice President and President and to wrap his own presidency in a thick cloak of secrecy.
One of Bush’s first acts as President was to sign an executive order that blocked the scheduled release of historic records from his father’s years. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush expanded his secrecy mandate to grant his family the power to withhold those documents from the American public in perpetuity, passing down the authority to keep the secrets to future Bush generations.
So, even after George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are dead, those noted historians Jenna and Barbara Bush will control key government documents covering a 20-year swath of U.S. history.
Already, every document at the George H.W. Bush presidential library must not only be cleared for release by specialists at the National Archives and – if classified – by the affected agencies, but also by the personal representatives of both the senior and junior George Bush.
With their backgrounds in secret societies like Skull and Bones – and with George H.W. Bush’s work at the CIA – the Bushes are keenly aware of the power that comes from controlling information. By keeping crucial facts from the American people, the Bushes feel they can turn the voters into easily manipulated children.
When there is a potential rupture of valuable information, the Bushes intervene, turning to influential friends to discredit some witness or relying on the U.S. military to make the threat go away. The Bushes have been helped immeasurably, too, by the credulity and cowardice of the modern U.S. news media and the Democratic Party.
What Can Be Done
Still, even with Hussein’s execution, there are actions that the American people can take to finally recover the lost history of the 1980s.
The U.S. military is now sitting on a treasure trove of documents seized during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration exploited these documents to discredit the United Nations over the “oil for food” scandal of the 1990s, ironically when Hussein wasn’t building weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush administration has withheld the records from the 1980s when Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons.
In 2004, for instance the CIA released the so-called Duelfer report, which acknowledged that the administration’s pre-invasion assertions about Hussein hiding WMD stockpiles were “almost all wrong.” But a curious feature of the report was that it included a long section about Hussein’s abuse of the U.N.’s “oil for food” program, although the report acknowledged that the diverted funds had not gone to build illegal weapons.
Meanwhile, the report noted the existence of a robust WMD program in the 1980s but offered no documentary perspective on how that operation had occurred and who was responsible for the delivery of crucial equipment and precursor chemicals. In other words, the CIA’s WMD report didn’t identify the non-Iraqis who made Iraq’s WMD arsenal possible.
One source who has seen the evidence told me that it contains information about the role of Chilean arms dealer Carlos Cardoen, who has been identified as a key link between the CIA and Iraq for the procurement of dangerous weapons in the 1980s. But that evidence has remained locked away.
With the Democrats taking control of Congress on Jan. 4, 2007, there could finally be an opportunity to force out more of the full story, assuming the Democrats don’t opt for their usual course of putting “bipartisanship” ahead of oversight and truth.
The American people also could demand that the surviving members of Hussein’s regime be fully debriefed on their historical knowledge before their voices also fall silent either from natural causes or additional executions.
But the singular figure who could have put the era in its fullest perspective – and provided the most damning evidence about the Bush Family’s role – has been silenced for good, dropped through a trap door of a gallows and made to twitch at the end of a noose fashioned from hemp.
The White House announced that George W. Bush didn’t wait up for the happy news of Hussein’s hanging. After the U.S. military turned Hussein over to his Iraqi executioners, Bush went to bed at his Crawford, Texas, ranch and slept through the night.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
|
| 1st January 2007 06:54 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
[Edited by corgi37] |
| 1st January 2007 07:30 AM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
[Edited by corgi37]
Yawn. |
| 1st January 2007 07:31 AM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Bush Silences a Dangerous Witness
By Robert Parry
December 30, 2006
Like a blue-blood version of a Mob family with global reach, the Bushes have eliminated one more key witness to the important historical events that led the U.S. military into a bloody stalemate in Iraq and pushed the Middle East to the brink of calamity.
The hanging of Saddam Hussein was supposed to be – as the New York Times observed – the “triumphal bookend” to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. If all had gone as planned, Bush might have staged another celebration as he did after the end of “major combat,” posing under the “Mission Accomplished” banner on May 1, 2003.
But now with nearly 3,000 American soldiers killed and the Iraqi death toll exceeding 600,000 by some estimates, Bush may be forced to savor the image of Hussein dangling at the end of a rope a little more privately.
Still, Bush has done his family’s legacy a great service while also protecting secrets that could have embarrassed other senior U.S. government officials.
He has silenced a unique witness to crucial chapters of the secret history that stretched from Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979 to the alleged American-Saudi “green light” for Hussein to attack Iran in 1980, through the eight years of the Iran-Iraq War during which high-ranking U.S. intermediaries, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, allegedly helped broker supplies of war materiel for Hussein.
Hussein now won’t be around to give troublesome testimony about how he obtained the chemical and biological agents that his scientists used to produce the unconventional weapons that were deployed against Iranian forces and Iraqi civilians. He can’t give his perspective on who got the money and who facilitated the deals.
Nor will Hussein be available to give his account of the mixed messages delivered by George H.W. Bush’s ambassador April Glaspie before Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Was there another American “green light” or did Hussein just hear what he wanted to hear?
Like the climactic scene from the Mafia movie “Casino” in which nervous Mob bosses eliminate everyone who knows too much, George W. Bush has now guaranteed that there will be no public tribunal where Hussein gives testimony on these potentially devastating historical scandals, which could threaten the Bush Family legacy.
That could have happened if Hussein had been turned over to an international tribunal at the Hague as was done with other tyrants, such as Yugoslavia’s late dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Instead Bush insisted that Hussein be tried in Iraq despite the obvious fact that the Iraqi dictator would receive nothing close to a fair trial before being put to death.
Hussein's hanging followed his trial for executing 148 men and boys from the town of Dujail in 1982 after a foiled assassination attempt on Hussein and his entourage. Hussein's death effectively moots other cases that were supposed to deal with his alleged use of chemical weapons to kill Iraqi civilians and other crimes that might have exposed the U.S. role.
[For details on what Hussein might have revealed, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege or Consortiumnews.com’s “Missing U.S.-Iraq History” or “The Secret World of Robert Gates.”]
Thrill of the Kill
Some observers think that Bush simply wanted the personal satisfaction of seeing Hussein hanged, which would not have happened if he had been sent to the Hague. As Texas governor, Bush sometimes took what appeared to be perverse pleasure at his power to execute prisoners.
In a 1999 interview with conservative writer Tucker Carlson for Talk magazine, Bush ridiculed convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker and her unsuccessful plea to Bush to spare her life.
Asked about Karla Faye Tucker’s clemency appeal, Bush mimicked what he claimed was the condemned woman’s message to him. “With pursed lips in mock desperation, [Bush said]: ‘Please don’t kill me.’”
But a more powerful motive was always Hussein’s potential threat to the Bush Family legacy if he ever had a forum where he could offer detailed testimony about the historic events of the past several decades.
Since stepping into the White House on Jan. 20, 2001, George W. Bush has made it a top priority to conceal the history of his father’s 12 years as Vice President and President and to wrap his own presidency in a thick cloak of secrecy.
One of Bush’s first acts as President was to sign an executive order that blocked the scheduled release of historic records from his father’s years. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush expanded his secrecy mandate to grant his family the power to withhold those documents from the American public in perpetuity, passing down the authority to keep the secrets to future Bush generations.
So, even after George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush are dead, those noted historians Jenna and Barbara Bush will control key government documents covering a 20-year swath of U.S. history.
Already, every document at the George H.W. Bush presidential library must not only be cleared for release by specialists at the National Archives and – if classified – by the affected agencies, but also by the personal representatives of both the senior and junior George Bush.
With their backgrounds in secret societies like Skull and Bones – and with George H.W. Bush’s work at the CIA – the Bushes are keenly aware of the power that comes from controlling information. By keeping crucial facts from the American people, the Bushes feel they can turn the voters into easily manipulated children.
When there is a potential rupture of valuable information, the Bushes intervene, turning to influential friends to discredit some witness or relying on the U.S. military to make the threat go away. The Bushes have been helped immeasurably, too, by the credulity and cowardice of the modern U.S. news media and the Democratic Party.
What Can Be Done
Still, even with Hussein’s execution, there are actions that the American people can take to finally recover the lost history of the 1980s.
The U.S. military is now sitting on a treasure trove of documents seized during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration exploited these documents to discredit the United Nations over the “oil for food” scandal of the 1990s, ironically when Hussein wasn’t building weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush administration has withheld the records from the 1980s when Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons.
In 2004, for instance the CIA released the so-called Duelfer report, which acknowledged that the administration’s pre-invasion assertions about Hussein hiding WMD stockpiles were “almost all wrong.” But a curious feature of the report was that it included a long section about Hussein’s abuse of the U.N.’s “oil for food” program, although the report acknowledged that the diverted funds had not gone to build illegal weapons.
Meanwhile, the report noted the existence of a robust WMD program in the 1980s but offered no documentary perspective on how that operation had occurred and who was responsible for the delivery of crucial equipment and precursor chemicals. In other words, the CIA’s WMD report didn’t identify the non-Iraqis who made Iraq’s WMD arsenal possible.
One source who has seen the evidence told me that it contains information about the role of Chilean arms dealer Carlos Cardoen, who has been identified as a key link between the CIA and Iraq for the procurement of dangerous weapons in the 1980s. But that evidence has remained locked away.
With the Democrats taking control of Congress on Jan. 4, 2007, there could finally be an opportunity to force out more of the full story, assuming the Democrats don’t opt for their usual course of putting “bipartisanship” ahead of oversight and truth.
The American people also could demand that the surviving members of Hussein’s regime be fully debriefed on their historical knowledge before their voices also fall silent either from natural causes or additional executions.
But the singular figure who could have put the era in its fullest perspective – and provided the most damning evidence about the Bush Family’s role – has been silenced for good, dropped through a trap door of a gallows and made to twitch at the end of a noose fashioned from hemp.
The White House announced that George W. Bush didn’t wait up for the happy news of Hussein’s hanging. After the U.S. military turned Hussein over to his Iraqi executioners, Bush went to bed at his Crawford, Texas, ranch and slept through the night.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Robert Parry is a has-been muckraker.
Yawn. |
| 1st January 2007 07:50 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
[Edited by corgi37]
Wow, I'd never heard that Rumsfeld visited with Saddam!!!! Shocking photo!!!!!! That Bush is such a liar!!!!! We need to impeach him post-haste!!!! I'm angry now!!!!!! |
| 1st January 2007 09:48 AM |
|
|
| creepin death |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
You're a fucking tool! Grow up ya stupid fucking punk! What are you like 16?
Riffy
no asshole im an adult. bush is responsible for the deaths of 3000 american soliders. the motherfucker needs to be hanged. |
| 1st January 2007 12:00 PM |
|
|
| killerbitch |
I did not vote for Bush. And I will be very happy when his term as President is
up. Those are some very enlightening articles on Bush, his Administration
and the war in Iraq. I will keep my eye on articles and read them, Thank You. |
| 2nd January 2007 12:47 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
Short-sighted. Someone in politics in the 80s that didn't communicate with Iraq would be idiotic. Remember that little Iranian hostage incident Carter managed like a back-seat politician, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iran-Iraq war? You would think people would be more concerned about EU and UN meetings with Iraq after sanctions or Kofi Annans work with the food-for-oil program while obtaining a tax-paid, rent-free apartment in New York for relatives. And how shocking that Presidential libraries actually follow document and security clearance protocols. Oh wait, it's not shocking it's required by law. But that should not stop anyone - isn't that what Sandy Berger is for? Look, I actually have have a lot of problems with the Bush administration. They are doing nothing for border control - China did a better job over a thousand years ago, they continue to promote policy that retards certain economic concepts, they let Kennedy write the education plan, and the military is being decimated in a multitude of ways that have nothing to do with the current war - but to be so short-sited in the big picture is even scarier than all my previous concerns combined. Some people are internally driven and some are externally driven - it becomes obvious in postings at times.
|
| 2nd January 2007 04:10 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
creepin death wrote:
no asshole im an adult. bush is responsible for the deaths of 3000 american soliders. the motherfucker needs to be hanged.
If you are an adult than you are are one of the most uneducated,shortsighted,backwards assed,immature adults that I have come across in a long long long time. Yes 3000 American troops is sad,but that is less troops than died in the first 45 minutes of the D Day invasion. Try a little historical perspective here young fella. Try putting the partisan,(hate Bush) rehtoric aside for just one fucking minute and understand how assine your previous post was. You are a joke if you think for an instant that Bush is even slightly evil. Saddam was a dispicable human being that was directtly responsible for more deaths of innocents than any man since Pol Pot. That you would have the audacity to compare Bush to Saddam shows just stupid,and unread you are.
Riffy |
| 2nd January 2007 06:29 PM |
|
|
| mrhipfl |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
You are a joke if you think for an instant that Bush is even slightly evil.
I agree with most of what you're saying Riffy, but I disagree with this statement. Bush didn't go to war because of WMDs. He didn't do it to liberate the Iraqi people. It didn't help the process of fighting terrorism. All he wanted was oil and wealth, and he indirectly killed thousands by getting it. To me, that makes him evil. But he is a politician, and in no way nearly as bad or comparable to Saddam. |
| 2nd January 2007 06:54 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
Unraveling in Iraq Doomed U.S. Plan
by David E. Sanger, Michael R. Gordon and John F. Burns
New York Times News Service
President Bush began 2006 assuring the country that he had a "strategy for victory in Iraq." He ended the year closeted with his war Cabinet on his ranch trying to devise a new strategy because the existing one had collapsed.
The original plan, championed by Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Baghdad, and backed by Donald Rumsfel, then the defense secretary, called for turning over responsibility for security to the Iraqis, decreasing the number of U.S. bases and beginning the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.
But the plan collided with Iraq's ferocious unraveling, which took most of Bush's war council by surprise.
In interviews in Washington and Baghdad, senior oficials said the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department also failed to take seriously warnings, including some from the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, that sectarian violence could rip the country apart and turn Bush's promise to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi neighborhoods and towns into an empty slogan.
This left the president and his advisers constantly lagging a step or two behind events on the ground.
"We could not clear and hold," Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, acknowledged in a recent interview, in a frank admission of how U.S. strategy had crumbled. "Iraqi forces were not able to hold neighborhoods, and the effort to build did not show up. The sectarian violence continued to mount, so we did not make the progress on security we had hoped. We did not bring the moderate Sunnis off the fence, as we had hoped. The Shia lost patience, and began to see the militias as their protectors." [Article continues]
___________________________________________________________
My question is, how could anyone NOT have seen the sectarian strife coming? Did they know absolutely NOTHING about the history of Iraq? |
| 2nd January 2007 07:52 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
Can anyone explain to me how we succeed in liberatiing them and give them there self reliance, while we are staying there until that happens?
Someone... anyone? |
| 2nd January 2007 11:47 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
I don't think anyone's opinion of Bush or the Iraq war matters. Islamic terrorism will continue to grow and there will be a larger war in the future - regardless of whether we entered Iraq or not. An Iraqi presence may actually help in the future. Want to get a feel for just how global this is and will be - follow this:
"DEBKAfile reports: Special US forces from Djibouti join the pursuit on the Somali-Kenyan border for three most wanted al Qaeda leaders in the Horn of Africa
January 1, 2007, 10:45 PM (GMT+02:00)
They fled south with the defeated Somali Islamist fighters. DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources identify them as: Abdullah Fazul, from the Comoro Islands, Ali Saleh Nabhan, from Kenya, and Abu Taha al-Sudani, from Sudan. Fazul, the most senior, is wanted for lead roles in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the 1996 Ethiopian Airline 961 hijack in which four Israeli air industry directors and 3 Israeli civilians were murdered; the ramming of the USS Cole in Aden Harbor which cost the lives of 19 US seamen, and the 2002 coordinated air-missiles attacks on the Mombasa Paradise hotel and the Israeli Arkia airliner bringing Israelis to the hotel.
Fazul is also the highest ranking operative in contact with clandestine al Qaeda networks in the Sinai Peninsula. His capture and interrogation would for the first time provide access to a primary source on al Qaeda’s precise plans for operations against Israel, but he has more than once escaped when his pursuers were hot on his heels."
[Edited by Taptrick]
[Edited by Taptrick] |
| 3rd January 2007 06:39 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Isnt it always funny how the rude, loud mouthed right wing chicken hawks are safely at home watching the game, shouting "USA, USA" - yet they aint defending freedom. Let some one else do it. Riding on the coat tails of others.
Why are you guys sitting on your fat asses? Get over there!
Nah, didnt think so. Gotta wash ya hair? Um, waiting for an urgent delivery. Er, gotta show to do. Oh, cant miss Desperate Housewives.
[Edited by corgi37] |
| 3rd January 2007 07:43 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Many right wing chicken hawks have served already. Many serve our country in other ways. Your interest in America is to be commended but it's too bad your knowledge isn't up to the challenge. |
| 3rd January 2007 08:45 AM |
|
|
| TampabayStone |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Many right wing chicken hawks have served already. Many serve our country in other ways. Your interest in America is to be commended but it's too bad your knowledge isn't up to the challenge.
True dat!
 |
| 3rd January 2007 09:00 AM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
Ever count the number of military operations conducted by the Clinton administration? It might be enlightening: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/index.html
|
| 3rd January 2007 09:09 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
D-Day. Good one. |
| 3rd January 2007 09:21 AM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
Do you mean D-Day was the last operation you saw of value?
|
| 3rd January 2007 09:46 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
I didn't make the comparison. But obviously by my previous statement, I would not equate Iraq with D-Day. Worry not, though, ol' Dubya's going to be asking us for more sacrifice. I guess it's time to get out the Mastercard again and hit the malls. |
| 3rd January 2007 07:56 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Taptrick wrote:
Ever count the number of military operations conducted by the Clinton administration? It might be enlightening: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/index.html
When Bush fans have no answers or talking points regarding his fuck ups, they bring up Clinton.
Will you tell me... How do we succeed in iraq, with the stated goal of them supporting themselves militarly and civily, while we are still there doing it for them, and won't leave until they do it themselves? |
| 3rd January 2007 09:30 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
Don't know how you got the idea I am a Bush fan. That's not my point. The point is it does not matter what happens in Iraq or which party is in power - there will be further involvement on a larger scale than we see now beyond the borders of Iraq. I am not bringing up Clinton as a point of criticism but rather as an example of how once someone gets in power and they start seeing the real security reports, certain actions become inevitable. That's a cool web site, check it out. It's amazing how many military operations we engage in that become forgotten history to your average American. The only thing I think could seriously retard the rise of Islamic terrorism is development of electromagnetic engines or something similar that would permanently cripple the economic might of oil.
|
| 3rd January 2007 09:36 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
Rasputin, I just saw the D-day thing - I missed that earlier. I think everyone may be surprised by what Democrats ask for in the coming years. By the way, does anybody remember when Ford toyed with the idea of sending troops to Angola?
|
| 3rd January 2007 10:01 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Taptrick wrote:
Don't know how you got the idea I am a Bush fan. That's not my point. The point is it does not matter what happens in Iraq or which party is in power - there will be further involvement on a larger scale than we see now beyond the borders of Iraq. I am not bringing up Clinton as a point of criticism but rather as an example of how once someone gets in power and they start seeing the real security reports, certain actions become inevitable. That's a cool web site, check it out. It's amazing how many military operations we engage in that become forgotten history to your average American. The only thing I think could seriously retard the rise of Islamic terrorism is development of electromagnetic engines or something similar that would permanently cripple the economic might of oil.
If you check the history of the USA, we've been in a state of war since WWII. |
| 3rd January 2007 10:16 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
No need to check but we have not been in state of active public offensive operations.
|
| 3rd January 2007 11:01 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
The thing is that this has zero to do with Bushism,or Bush geeks,or whatever the hell else some partisan hacks (and Moonie) want to call it. I have no problem with somebody questioning the strategy and plan of going into Iraq. That's fair game,but to try and show some kind of moral equivalency between Bush and Saddam is just flat out absurd. It's also demeaning to the millions of victims of Saddam Hussein. That monster killed men,women,and children wholesale,and with absolutly no remorse. When I see morons like this creeping death character try and compare Bush's actions to those of Saddam Hussein I just roll my eyes. People like him/her add nothing to the discussion. They just prove their utter ignorance.
Iraq was an easy mark. Simple as that. It was the only country that had violated UN resolution after resolution. It sits in the heart of the enemy's territory. It's a mordern day beachhead if you will. Taptrick is absolutly right. This war is going to get bigger and nastier regardless of who is in the WH. Bush may have made some mistakes in Iraq,but at least he is trying to take the war to the radical fucks. This war will last until we have so badly decimated the radical Islamic infrastructure that they give up. That may take decades. Why? Becaue we are so goddamned worried about shit like "collateral damage". Fuck that! War is ugly stuff. Time to show radical Islam just how truly ugly it can be! Librals want to tie the hands of our millitary,and limpwristed Republicans go along with them. To what end? That is just going to drag this war on and on and on.
In 1945 the US and the UK bombed Dresden,Germany. Why? There were no millitary resources there. There was no tactical reason to bomb Dresden at all. Except one. The bombing of Dresden so demoralized the German population that they stopped believing what their goverment had been spoon feeding them for years. Dresden was bombed for the affect that it would have on the population. In other words,for the purpose of terror. We seem to have forgotten that we too can engage in terror if it helps end the ruthlessness of tyranical leaders. Radical Islam is as bad as Hilter,Hirohito,or Stalin ever were in it's desires,and it's complete disregard for the loss of innocent lives.
All I hear from liberals is shit like-NSA wiretapping is invassive!! Don't even think about profiling!!! Close Gitmo!!! Close Gitmo!!! Abu Garibe!!! Abu Garibe!!! Abu Garibe!!! Jose Padilla!!! He's an American!!! Then you get the Dem leaders like Dick Durbin talking about US troops-"Nazis,Soviets in their gulags,or some mad regime,Pol Pot or others-had no concern for human beings" Of course we can't forget the Dems 2004 nominee John "Veitnam War Hero" Kerry,when he said,-"US Troops are terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night."
Has Bush fucked up? Huh,yeah! No shit! However,given the alternative I'll take Bush anyday. At least he knows that these fucktards have declared war on the entire free world. I'll just be happy when the world wakes up and figures out what these Islamofucks have been screaming about for years. Why do librals not see it? Easy answer. Because they hate Bush,and yes in some cases because they hate America.
Riffy |
| 3rd January 2007 11:46 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Nice post as usual Riffy! |
| 4th January 2007 10:04 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this "war" supposed to be against radical Islamic terrorists? There's a so-called "front" when these people are scattered throughout every country in the world? To think that starting a war in Iraq would cause all the terrorists to flock there to fight the infidel was naive and reckless. Instead, there's a small amount of foreign fighters stirring up shit and two major religous factions of Iraqis battling over who will control the country with our guys in the middle.
There are still terrorist attacks all over the world. Just in case no one's paying attention, this isn't a war where two armies face each other on a battlefield and duke it out. This is a war against conflicting ideas (albeit one side's ideas are murderous and maniacal). Bombing, blowing up, torture, etc. ain't gonna change that. The Israelis and Palestinians have been beating the shit out of each other for 60 years. How's that working out? Guess what? You can't kill 'em all. This isn't Nazi Germany where the "devotion" was localized to a country or two. We're talking about religous fanaticism which is spread in every corner of the world. Good luck with trying to end that by putting more of our guys (and gals) in harms way in Iraq.
Is that too limpwristed for the keyboard kommandos? As will inevitably be demanded in the next post, I will refrain from offering my alternative to the easy "kill 'em all" policy for fear of being accused of having no wrist at all because it may include some form of (gasp) talking. |
|
