ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

...It was her second name!
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAŅOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [ GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Zarqawi dead!!! (NSC) Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
8th June 2006 06:32 PM
pdog
quote:
Some Guy wrote:
Dudes you're overlooking the big picture. It's all about abolishing gay marraige.



Iraq is known for it's flamboyant lifestyle!
8th June 2006 06:36 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
pdog wrote:


Success: When the people of Iraq can stop dying, when US soldiers can come home... Whether I like it or not, we are there... My dislike for an administration can not be synonymous with defeat for our military. No one comes out ahead like that...




LOL!!! a disingenuous answer that gives the question back!! Funny--you confuse cause and effect--the soldiers can come home anytime--that is not our home, so to answer when they can come home with 'when they can come home' is frankly the sort of non-reasoning that disgusts anyone with a brain and a knowledge of history. The question is INEVITABLY under what cicumstances will they come home There is and never has been any such thing as 'the people of Iraq'!!! It is a fake country cobbled together by drunken Western politicians hanging in Paris 1919 who forced three sperate and antagonistic nationalities together. The Shi'ites hate the Sunnis, vice-versa, and the Kurds hate being associated with either of them. Only brutal monarchs, Western arms, and bloody dictators kept the place together. Now that we have removed the strongman, there is nothing WE can do to stop these three different nationalities from seeking their mutually exclusive destinies....they will be killing each other after we leave. You are chasing a chimera...it is similar to Lebanon in the 80's where we ended up in the middle of a tribal War and one that was going on for decades before we got there and went on another decade or more AFTER we left. The Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis will all, similarly, be killing each other five years from now whether we are there OR NOT. We don't live there, and we will not permanently reside there--so at some point the question becomes 'on what terms will we leave'? As in Indo-China--we WILL leave sooner or later, it's just under what terms. Our enemies know this and you play into their hands when you delay giving a sensible strategy. And to blindly cling to some vision of a false victory that can't even be defined is worse than foolish; it is wrong.

Free Kurdistan--they earned it....



[Edited by lotsajizz]
8th June 2006 06:40 PM
pdog
8th June 2006 06:42 PM
Some Guy Did Maxy come up with that?
8th June 2006 06:57 PM
pdog
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:



LOL!!! a disingenuous answer that gives the question back!! Funny--you confuse cause and effect--the soldiers can come home anytime--that is not our home, so to answer when they can come home with 'when they can come home' is frankly the sort of non-reasoning that disgusts anyone with a brain and a knowledge of history. The question is INEVITABLY under what cicumstances will they come home There is and never has been any such thing as 'the people of Iraq'!!! It is a fake country cobbled together by drunken Western politicians hanging in Paris 1919 who forced three sperate and antagonistic nationalities together. The Shi'ites hate the Sunnis, vice-versa, and the Kurds hate being associated with either of them. Only brutal monarchs, Western arms, and bloody dictators kept the place together. Now that we have removed the strongman, there is nothing WE can do to stop these three different nationalities from seeking their mutually exclusive destinies....they will be killing each other after we leave. You are chasing a chimera...it is similar to Lebanon in the 80's where we ended up in the middle of a tribal War and one that was going on for decades before we got there and went on another decade or more AFTER we left. The Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis will all, similarly, be killing each other five years from now whether we are there OR NOT. We don't live there, and we will not permanently reside there--so at some point the question becomes 'on what terms will we leave'? As in Indo-China--we WILL leave sooner or later, it's just under what terms. Our enemies know this and you play into their hands when you delay giving a sensible strategy. And to blindly cling to some vision of a false victory that can't even be defined is worse than foolish; it is wrong.

Free Kurdistan--they earned it....



[Edited by lotsajizz]



You obviously don't know me, or my politics or my knowledge of world affairs. It's 2006, in Iraq we only have one option, succeed, at this point looking back is pointless, good for debate, but totally pointless as far as our interests go in the region.... If we fail, it's a major failure. It's not about liking Bush or not liking him for me...
I do see the big picture, and have my own views on how we should end our oil-terror problem. Iraq is part of it, it wouldn't have been my first step. Then again Saudi Arabia is so immeshed in our economy, that only through a stabilized Mid-East and energy independence can we really win.
In case you didn't know, The Kurds are actually doing better now than they have in hundreds of years... That is some of the good news, we don't hear alot about!
8th June 2006 07:03 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
pdog wrote:

It's 2006, in Iraq we only have one option, succeed,




I asked you before, I ask again; define 'success'. I define it as breaking the stupid mistake apart, giving the Kurds their own nation, splitting the Shi'ites and the Sunnis to their respective geographical corners, putting puppets in, declaring 'victory', and getting out within a year or so, retaining some bases to poke back in on an as-needed basis. So what's your definition?


8th June 2006 07:06 PM
Dan
quote:
pdog wrote:


You obviously don't know me, or my politics or my knowledge of world affairs. It's 2006, in Iraq we only have one option, succeed, at this point looking back is pointless, good for debate, but totally pointless as far as our interests go in the region.... If we fail, it's a major failure. It's not about liking Bush or not liking him for me...
I do see the big picture, and have my own views on how we should end our oil-terror problem. Iraq is part of it, it wouldn't have been my first step. Then again Saudi Arabia is so immeshed in our economy, that only through a stabilized Mid-East and energy independence can we really win.
In case you didn't know, The Kurds are actually doing better now than they have in hundreds of years... That is some of the good news, we don't hear alot about!



Great post! While I didn't agree with the invasion in the first place, withdrawal would be a terrible mistake. At the very best it would turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was in the 1990s and at the very worst it would leave the door open for attempts at pacification/subjugation by other third parties such as Iran or even China.
8th June 2006 07:08 PM
Dan
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
I asked you before, I ask again; define 'success'. I define it as breaking the stupid mistake apart, giving the Kurds their own nation, splitting the Shi'ites and the Sunnis to their respective geographical corners, putting puppets in, declaring 'victory', and getting out within a year or so, retaining some bases to poke back in on an as-needed basis. So what's your definition?



Retaining decent staging areas for any future confrontation with hostile nations in the region and keeping Iran encircled. Ending the killing would be nice but wouldn't count on it. Let them die so we can live the way we are accustomed to.
8th June 2006 07:33 PM
pdog
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:




I asked you before, I ask again; define 'success'. I define it as breaking the stupid mistake apart, giving the Kurds their own nation, splitting the Shi'ites and the Sunnis to their respective geographical corners, putting puppets in, declaring 'victory', and getting out within a year or so, retaining some bases to poke back in on an as-needed basis. So what's your definition?






I also wanted a Kurdish state, about a gazzillion years ago. Unfortunately, you seem to forget that the oil in Iraq should be shared by all Iraqi's. Not allowing a Shia' who suffered under Saddam the right to an oil rich economy isn't fair as well...
Which can be settled in Democracy, is it possible? I don't know, but it's the only option now. The other is failure.
You keep wanting my definition of success. If you've paid attention for the past few years you'd know, I see this as a regional issue. I don't claim to have the answers. Unlike alot of people here, I'm okay with not being so certain. It's the people who think they're certain, that scare me. In that sense, you're just like Bush. You think you're different, but you're only different in principle, no different in manner. Chew on that!
8th June 2006 07:35 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
Dan wrote:


Great post! While I didn't agree with the invasion in the first place, withdrawal would be a terrible mistake.



Withdrawl is inevitable. We don't live there. This is the same realization our enemies in Indo-China had--sooner or later the outsiders will go--the only question is under what terms. Something a statesman would be thinking about now. So clearly the administration is not.


8th June 2006 07:37 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
pdog wrote:


you seem to forget that the oil in Iraq should be shared by all Iraqi's




and you seem to forget that there is and never has been any such thing as an Iraqi except in the eyes of outsiders---the people who live there identify themselves not as Iraqi, but as one of the religious or ethnic sects...chew on that


Further, in the absence of your declaring why your background, about which you accurately stated I know not, is somehow relevant, you have merely tossed out out yet another non sequitir in this exchange. Kind of the same logical effect as answering 'when can the soldiers come home' with 'when they can come home'.


[Edited by lotsajizz]
8th June 2006 07:56 PM
Riffhard This just in-Zarqawi still dead. Terrorits and liberals the world over say in unison,"It's Bush's fault!" "Bush lied,Zarqawi died!"


Riffy
8th June 2006 07:58 PM
Dan
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Withdrawl is inevitable. We don't live there. This is the same realization our enemies in Indo-China had--sooner or later the outsiders will go--the only question is under what terms. Something a statesman would be thinking about now. So clearly the administration is not.



Who knows what they are thinking, all our info is on a need to know basis, not want to know. We can always repopulate the region with our own citizens (or even illegal Mexicans) making the actual residents less of an issue. Much like China is doing with Xinjiang or Siberia.
8th June 2006 08:06 PM
lotsajizz well, Mr. Dan, if you're gonna do this, go all the way---I see the logic there, but we don't seem up for a Crusade, just a half-assed, ignorant stupid war....

it may, however, be the time to think about a more long-term solution to the situation



8th June 2006 08:06 PM
pdog
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:



and you seem to forget that there is and never has been any such thing as an Iraqi except in the eyes of outsiders---the people who live there identify themselves not as Iraqi, but as one of the religious or ethnic sects...chew on that


Further, in the absence of your declaring why your background, about which you accurately stated I know not, is somehow relevant, you have merely tossed out out yet another non sequitir in this exchange. Kind of the same logical effect as answering 'when can the soldiers come home' with 'when they can come home'.


[Edited by lotsajizz]



You want the soldiers to just leave Iraq, right now?
8th June 2006 08:07 PM
lotsajizz Nope--I articulated my definition of sucess a few posts earlier. You just choose to overlook that I answered the question that you did not.



[Edited by lotsajizz]
8th June 2006 08:11 PM
Dan
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
well, Mr. Dan, if you're gonna do this, go all the way---I see the logic there, but we don't seem up for a Crusade, just a half-assed, ignorant stupid war....

it may, however, be the time to think about a more long-term solution to the situation



Did I say death camps? I mean fun camps! Look at all the fun the Iraqi's are having.
8th June 2006 08:12 PM
stonedinaustralia
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:

Oh sure, my friend, I have total faith in their defeat.


Had you seen first hand two gigantic buildings with planes parked rudely on the upper floors belching jet fuel into their cores while you knew perfectly well some people you know were at their desk above those planes, you might feel a certain sense of urgency and reality that some might not. (Maybe you did see this first hand. I'm only guessing you didn't actually.) One doesn't even need to have seen this or have a loved in those buildings. Just stating my point of view.










well you are right max i ddin't see that first hand and i appreciate that not having so or not having been around to witness any such act first hand compromises my ability to comment - to a degree

however, i did anticipate that you might make a comment along such lines and my response to this is to say that (and while i acknowledge that the Twin Towers coming down was a huge enormity (in the true sense of the word) i felt that the British response to the incidents that occurred there last year was the better...maybe its due to the fact that the US has been fortuante in that it has generally been spared from such acts while our British and Eurpoean cousins have been putting up with terrorist violence in some form or another basically forever - the US response seemed to be more one of fear and letting the perpetrators set the agenda while the brit response seemed to be one where they metaphorically picked themselves up, dusted themselves off and then got on with their lives refusing to let these "people" believe that their acts had in any way cowed them
8th June 2006 08:32 PM
telecaster
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:


Withdrawl is inevitable. We don't live there. This is the same realization our enemies in Indo-China had--sooner or later the outsiders will go--the only question is under what terms. Something a statesman would be thinking about now. So clearly the administration is not.






What administration? FDR's? Truman's? Clintons?

Jizzy seem to forgot we still have troops in Japan, Germany and Korea and Bosnia

Oops!
8th June 2006 08:34 PM
telecaster
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
nope--I articulated my definition of sucess a few posts earlier. you just choose to overlook that which is inconvenient.






You did? Where?

Asking questions and giving history isn't a definition

Tell us Jizzy:

1.

2.

3.

List howe you define success

Not a history lesson or more questions

List howe YOU define success



8th June 2006 08:35 PM
PeerQueer [quote]telecaster wrote:


What administration? FDR's? Truman's? Clintons?

Jizzy seem to forgot we still have troops in Japan, Germany and Korea and Bosnia

Oops!
_________

It has become quite apparent Mr. Jizz is a an idiot lacking any real working knowledge of reality...
8th June 2006 08:36 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
telecaster wrote:


What administration? FDR's? Truman's? Clintons?

Jizzy seem to forgot we still have troops in Japan, Germany and Korea and Bosnia

Oops!




and in none of those circumstances do we have the forces we had when we fist went in, unlike now, where force levels have increased, and stability has not...time to split the damned place into three, put in puppets, declare victory, leave behind some bases as in tele's above cited (but somewhat misguided) example....


ladies and gentlemen, like it or not, some variation of the above WILL take place


oops


cluck





8th June 2006 08:39 PM
telecaster
quote:
PeerQueer wrote:
[quote]telecaster wrote:


What administration? FDR's? Truman's? Clintons?

Jizzy seem to forgot we still have troops in Japan, Germany and Korea and Bosnia

Oops!
_________

It has become quite apparent Mr. Jizz is a an idiot lacking any real working knowledge of reality...



He still thinks Neville Chamberlain was right.....

Nuff said
8th June 2006 08:39 PM
pdog
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
nope--I articulated my definition of sucess a few posts earlier. you just choose to overlook that which is inconvenient.






you keep mentioning it... If I hear you right, you're saying we should try to for 3 democracies in the region, not one?
You claimed to a libertarian. You're a far left liberal...
This is a great day for our miltary. The most evil terorirst in the world taday was killed, and you can't even enjoy it!
I at least understand why the right is so attacking. They were at the mercy of a liberal media for so long, and now have successfully leveled the playing field. Liberals now aare so freaked out, they can't even find an agenda.
There is only one success, self governing Iraq. The past is the past. Three seperate states ain't gonna happen... It's a great idea, but the reason Iraq wxists is b/c these three groups couldn't get along. Now, with incredible vision, we have an oppurtunity to stabalize the region. My vision is different than The Republicans, b/c mine goes hand in hand with eliminating all economic ties to Saudi's through energy independence. Saudi Arabia is also the heart and soul of Islamic fundamentalism. A stabilized Iraq, would force Saudi to deal with Iran as well as deal with Islamic fundamtalists. This is the only thing this administration has done, that has shown vision. Unfortunately their to stupid to finish the job. Which is why I want Wesley Clark to be president, a man who understands military and diplomtic solutions, which is what must be done. Iraq must be finished. If we cut and run, the scenario there would be far worse than anything Saddam had done... The Shia with their own country, would be Iran Jr. The sunni's would still hate The Kurds and the Kurds would get revenge. 90% of the iraqi's know this and want peace, and are willing to work for it. We need more troops in their to kill the rest of these Jihadists fuckheads. They target the intellectuals and the people willing to work for a Democracy. I hate the fact we were lied to to go in... It was unnecessary for me. They were nuber 3 on my todo list. Then again, with Iraq stabilized, Iran is fucked and they know it... The Saudis will be forced to either step up, and work with the other nations in the region, or they will also have hell to pay. No country in the region wil lbenefit, if Iraq goes to shit and Iran becomes a nuclear power. This is the only thing The bush white house has done that shows any vision, inept and lacking in follow through, yes... But I'm the first one to say it, in 30 years, we could be living in a world were Iraq is not only peaceful, but safe for westerners as well. At this point of the game, there is no looking back. pointing fingers and politicizing this shit won't get the job done. Wesley Clark is the man who I think can finish this. Dinsih it we must. For the long haul too. This problem started over 30 years ago when we allowed saudi money to get us out of an oil crisis, and then backed an Islamic Freedom Fighter movemnet in Afghanistan. Mistakes were made, we have a chance to fix this shit, and do it right! Will the leaders do it? I don't know. The death of Zarqawi is the best news since September 11th. This guy was evil incarnate long before then, and would've been doing something somewhere. Now he's dead. We do this a thousand more times, we will have peace in Iraq!
8th June 2006 08:44 PM
Brainbell Jangler I am delighted that the murderous psychopathic criminal and enemy of freedom al-Zarqawi is dead.
8th June 2006 08:51 PM
Chuck "Anybody who isn't happy with this, is not able to see good from evil."

'Evil' and 'good' are creaky religious concepts that prevent liberals from understanding fascism, or doing anything about it.

Idealist criticism, which judges according to an inert set of abstract ideas, regularly makes disastrous blunders.

8th June 2006 08:52 PM
lotsajizz
quote:
telecaster wrote:


You did? Where?





Four or five posts above. You flunk Reading Comprehension again, telecoward. To repeat it in case you can't figure out how to scroll up
"I define it as breaking the stupid mistake apart, giving the Kurds their own nation, splitting the Shi'ites and the Sunnis to their respective geographical corners, putting puppets in, declaring 'victory', and getting out within a year or so, retaining some bases to poke back in on an as-needed basis."


You must have missed that part, tele....like you miss anything that does not fit your overly narrow weltschaunig.


And pdog misses it again---I said puppets, who said anything about 'three democracies'?!? You are living in pollyanna land if you think you're gonna find James Madison or Ben Franklin strollin' around downtown Baghdad....






[Edited by lotsajizz]
8th June 2006 08:54 PM
Maxlugar [quote]stonedinaustralia wrote:
i felt that the British response to the incidents that occurred there last year was the better...maybe its due to the fact that the US has been fortuante in that it has generally been spared from such acts while our British and Eurpoean cousins have been putting up with terrorist violence in some form or another basically forever - the US response seemed to be more one of fear and letting the perpetrators set the agenda while the brit response seemed to be one where they metaphorically picked themselves up, dusted themselves off and then got on with their lives refusing to let these "people" believe that their acts had in any way cowed them



The British police chased a guy down and tackled him then put a bullet through his brain on a subway car. In mistaken identity no less. Seems they were doing more that dusting themselves off. Seems there was much fear. That's not a knock on the them by the way. This is serious nad fear is needed.

I don't agree with you that the US is letting the terrorists set the agenda. Nothing could be further than the truth! Bush has been as proactive as any president could ever be in taking the fight to them. It's a large percentage of the US population that is forgetting just how serious this is. I'll give you that.
8th June 2006 09:01 PM
telecaster
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:



Four or five posts above. You flunk Reading Comprehension again, telecoward. To repeat it in case you can't figure out how to scroll up
"I define it as breaking the stupid mistake apart, giving the Kurds their own nation, splitting the Shi'ites and the Sunnis to their respective geographical corners, putting puppets in, declaring 'victory', and getting out within a year or so, retaining some bases to poke back in on an as-needed basis."


You must have missed that part, tele....like you miss anything that does not fit your overly narrow weltschaunig.


And pdog misses it again---I said puppets, who said anything about 'three democracies'?!? You are living in pollyanna land if you think you're gonna find James Madison or Ben Franklin strollin' around downtown Baghdad....






[Edited by lotsajizz]



My mistake Jizzy, my RO/Novogate ain't downloading well tonight and half of the posts are not showing up

At least, for once, you offered an opinion/thought

Got it. You want us to "cut n run"

Thanks





8th June 2006 09:06 PM
lotsajizz Tele, are you addicted to putting words in people's mouths? Because you do it with me, rather than arguing what I actually said. You do it all the time. You might call it 'cut and run'. I do not and suggest that you can not come up with any more sensible ending than what I proposed. But 'cut and run' it ain't....now quit the strawman fetish that is really oh so Stalinish



Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)