# American Terrorism



## Taomon (Dec 28, 2007)

9/11 was not the first terrorist attack on US soil. In fact, throughout history America and her citizens have committed terrorist acts.

The bombing of the Alfred P Murrah Federal building was pinned on Timothy Mc Veigh. He confessed and mainstream America believe that he and Terry Nichols were the sole conspirators. There is a school of thought that puts forth the thesis that the two perpetrators were covering up a larger conspiracy tied to Middle East terror groups. While this may be true, the basic fact is that the bombing was a terrorist attack executed on American soil against American interests. So 9/11 was not the first strike against America on American soil (sorry Noam). But perhaps I am splitting hairs here.

Then again, when one looks at the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing one cannot ignore the blatant fact that we have been attacked already. What differs between the 1993 attack and the 2001 attack? For one, the 1993 attack was declared as and treated as a criminal act, which it was. The perpetrators were apprehended and justice was served. In 2001, Bush declared war. And the evidence was destroyed, a lot of inconsistencies were covered up and no true investigation was done. Unless you think the modern day Warren Commission AKA the 9/11 Commission did their job and no more should be said on the subject. For me, 9/11 was a crime and the cover up of that crime was an offense far worse than the actual terrorist attack.  And one last point, for all those people who claim that George W Bush has kept us safe since 9/11; it was 8 years between the first WTC bombing and the next attack.

September 11, 2001 brought America to a screeching halt. This was an effective and brutal attack on our soil. Instantly we knew it was Islamic extremists who sought to radically change our culture to one of a strict theocracy. Americans were shocked and appalled, and rightfully so. But violence caused by religious extremists is not new to America. The Puritans exacted very harsh treatments to those colonists who did not abide by their God-fearing rules. The witch trials of Salem and other places displayed a pathetic, yet dangerous, hysteria surrounding the fear of subversive behavior. But the worst may be the bombings of abortion clinics and the killing of their doctors. Religious zealots dehumanize their victims when they believe that the doctor or the female getting an abortion is sinning and must be punished. Zealots believe that they will be rewarded for doing Gods work. Sound familiar? The 9/11 terrorists had the same belief.

I can go on and on about terrorist activities committed by America and her citizens. There are many more examples. However, the basic fact is that now the guns are pointed at us. But it is the guns of Corporate America. It is the guns of the Military Industrial Complex. It is the guns of the Pentagon and the White House. America is changing into a softer version of a fascist state (think of George Orwells 1984). A state controlled by banks and investors. A state where individual liberty pales in comparison to the liberty of capital. 

We are cannon fodder for oil executives, mercenaries and war profiteers. We are cattle for business to exploit. The sad part is that we embrace it with open arms because that is what we have been conditioned to do.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 28, 2007)

um...


welcome to the boards...


This thread is doomed but... welcome anyway.


----------



## eots (Dec 28, 2007)

Shogun said:


> um...
> 
> 
> welcome to the boards...
> ...



ya until its on FOX few people on this board will acknowledge these facts
and reasoned opinions...but don't give up many also said RON PAUL supporters
are a fringe group of terrorist and mental patients in a neo-Nazi spam bot conspiracy


----------



## Taomon (Dec 28, 2007)

Thanks shogun & eots.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 28, 2007)

Do I strike you as the fox news watching type, Eots?


----------



## eots (Dec 28, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Do I strike you as the fox news watching type, Eots?



no ..your arguments and opinions on these subjects lacks key pre-programed responses such as references to mental illness, tinfoil hats ,twilight zone music and the regurgitation of long ago disproved misinformation that characterize the the typical FOX viewer


----------



## trobinett (Dec 28, 2007)

eots said:


> no ..your arguments and opinions on these subjects lacks key pre-programed responses such as references to mental illness, tinfoil hats ,twilight zone music and the regurgitation of long ago disproved misinformation that characterize the the typical FOX viewer



YOU however, seem well qualified.

Care to elaborate?


----------



## eots (Dec 28, 2007)

trobinett said:


> YOU however, seem well qualified.
> 
> Care to elaborate?



on false flag terror that has occurred within America ? if thats the question 
then yes I could elaborate at great length, JFK ..okalhoma was an inside job .as was the first wtc bombing and the second,operation northwoods ,Mk ultra , bio weapon experiments on civilians, the drug trade..all.. CIA.. duh
what would you like to know  ?


----------



## Toro (Dec 29, 2007)

Taomon said:


> I can go on and on about terrorist activities committed by America and her citizens. There are many more examples. However, the basic fact is that now the guns are pointed at us. But it is the guns of Corporate America. It is the guns of the Military Industrial Complex.



That is sooooooooooooooooo 1960s.


----------



## Taomon (Dec 29, 2007)

Toro said:


> That is sooooooooooooooooo 1960s.



But it is soooooooo true. You do realize that the news is not the news per se right? The news is opinion shaped by the heads of the owning corporations and by the sponsors.

You do realize that the military industrial complex has gained strength and is now infiltrating our state department. First response teams will soon beome privatized and run by firms like Blackwater right?

Rather than being sarcastic and flippant, you should be opening your eyes to what is happening to our country. We should be stopping this at all costs.


----------



## Toro (Dec 29, 2007)

You do realize that the entire defense industry in this country has less sales than Wal-Mart?

You do realize that Halliburton's stock - the company that embodies all the evil on the world of the far Left - has gone sideways for two years?

You do realize that conservatives view the media as liberal and hostile to their interests?

You do realize that this war has done damage to the economic welfare - and thus business - of this country?

Rather than being archaically dogmatic, perhaps you should be opening your eyes outside of this anachronistic rigid ideology.


----------



## Taomon (Dec 29, 2007)

Toro said:


> You do realize that the entire defense industry in this country has less sales than Wal-Mart?


 *Unless you count Blackwater, Tripod and the multitude of private security firms. Plus, the military industrial complex includes surveillance, computers, weapons and so on.*



Toro said:


> You do realize that Halliburton's stock - the company that embodies all the evil on the world of the far Left - has gone sideways for two years?


 *Yet, KBR has all of the Iraq contracts. Duh! Same company!*



Toro said:


> You do realize that conservatives view the media as liberal and hostile to their interests?


 *That is a myth. Conservatives yell and scream about the liberal media and yet who dominates the airwaves? Shows like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity & Colms, FoxNews and all the talking heads like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Yeah a real big liberal conspiracy going on here. The real conspiracy is that people are willingly lied to. I wonder why that is.*



Toro said:


> You do realize that this war has done damage to the economic welfare - and thus business - of this country?


 *Yes and no. It has harmed the taxpayers and domestic business. Transnationals like Wal-mart and ExxonMobil are doing fine. There are two Americas: Corporate America (which includes the banks, investors & companies) and everyday America (which is where you and live). We are spectators in this economic boon that Bush speaks of. The true American economy is in shambles and has been for a long time. You can thank the concept of speculative markets for that.*



Toro said:


> Rather than being archaically dogmatic, perhaps you should be opening your eyes outside of this anachronistic rigid ideology.



*My eyes are wide open brother. How about yours?*


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 29, 2007)

Taomon said:


> For me, 9/11 was a crime and the cover up of that crime was an offense far worse than the actual terrorist attack.



On another thread you said that murder was a sin, so I'm a bit confused now, but I won't ask you to justify your comment since your answer would necessarily be conjecture, or at best unproven allegations.

So, for comparison purposes, can I ask whether there are any further offenses that you consider to be worse than the indiscriminate mass murder of innocent men, women and children (essentially this means 3,000 "sins" all happening at once)?


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 29, 2007)

Welcome Taomon.

That post is a bit too conspiratorial and extreme for me but you have some of it right. McVeigh was an alienated individual upset over Waco and that big bad meanie the government. Anti government propaganda and his own immaturity poisoned his actions. Abortion clinic bombings are closer to the radical Islamic religious types. It is hard to categorize each of them as their grievances and motivations are different. Louise Richardson writes that 'terrorism requires alienated individuals, a complicit community, and a legitimizing ideology motivated by a desire for revenge, renown, and reaction from the enemy.' While those pieces are common, corporate power doesn't fit it. It could be labeled rampant greed or unethical behavior or humans at their lowest. Somewhere around the time of Reagan, America shifted more to a social darwinist ethic, that worships business and riches, and cares not for America, and especially not for the average working Joe. 

A final thought would be maybe the only American terrorism was aimed at the indigenous people.


----------



## Taomon (Dec 29, 2007)

tigerbob said:


> On another thread you said that murder was a sin, so I'm a bit confused now, but I won't ask you to justify your comment since your answer would necessarily be conjecture, or at best unproven allegations.
> 
> So, for comparison purposes, can I ask whether there are any further offenses that you consider to be worse than the indiscriminate mass murder of innocent men, women and children (essentially this means 3,000 "sins" all happening at once)?



No murder of one person and murder of thousands is wrong. Neither is lesser than the other.

Complicity is worse because one could stop aggression and chose not to...which is the same as being the one flying the plane into the WTC.

Understand now or should I elaborate? The citizens of Germany were as culpable as the Nazi soldiers who committed atrocities in the concentration camps. They knew and did nothing...which the exception of the few who hid Jews from the Nazis. That was an honorable feat.


----------



## Taomon (Dec 29, 2007)

midcan5 said:


> Welcome Taomon.
> 
> A final thought would be maybe the only American terrorism was aimed at the indigenous people.



Thanks for the welcome. I actually address the Native American Indian genocide in another opinion piece titled "I don not celebrate Thanksgiving."

I posted it here for you guys as well.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=634821#post634821


----------



## tigerbob (Dec 29, 2007)

Taomon said:


> No murder of one person and murder of thousands is wrong. Neither is lesser than the other.
> 
> Complicity is worse because one could stop aggression and chose not to...which is the same as being the one flying the plane into the WTC.
> 
> Understand now or should I elaborate? The citizens of Germany were as culpable as the Nazi soldiers who committed atrocities in the concentration camps. They knew and did nothing...which the exception of the few who hid Jews from the Nazis. That was an honorable feat.



No - no need to elaborate.  I think I understand you already.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 29, 2007)

Taomon said:


> No murder of one person and murder of thousands is wrong. Neither is lesser than the other.
> 
> Complicity is worse because one could stop aggression and chose not to...which is the same as being the one flying the plane into the WTC.
> 
> Understand now or should I elaborate? The citizens of Germany were as culpable as the Nazi soldiers who committed atrocities in the concentration camps. They knew and did nothing...which the exception of the few who hid Jews from the Nazis. That was an honorable feat.



Not hardly.  One, that German citizens "knew" is conjecture.  Two, even if they might have known some or all, it's REAL easy for you to sit and judge and blow all kinds of smoke about what you'd stand up to because you don't have a Gestapo agent holding a P-38 to your head.

You seem to have left out the part where ANYONE so much as questioning the Reich was considered an "enemy of the state."


----------



## Taomon (Dec 29, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> it's REAL easy for you to sit and judge and blow all kinds of smoke about what you'd stand up to because you don't have a Gestapo agent holding a P-38 to your head.


Yet.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 29, 2007)

Taomon said:


> Yet.


----------



## Toro (Dec 29, 2007)

Taomon said:


> *Unless you count Blackwater, Tripod and the multitude of private security firms. Plus, the military industrial complex includes surveillance, computers, weapons and so on.*



No, including those too.



> *That is a myth. Conservatives yell and scream about the liberal media and yet who dominates the airwaves? Shows like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity & Colms, FoxNews and all the talking heads like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Yeah a real big liberal conspiracy going on here. The real conspiracy is that people are willingly lied to. I wonder why that is.*



That's your opinion.  Conservatives feel that the MSM is biased against them - pretty much everything except Fox News and talk radio, the only references you mentioned.  How can this be?  Are they all stupid?  If big corporate media interests are so pro-conservative, why do so many conservatives loathe the media?



> *Yes and no. It has harmed the taxpayers and domestic business. Transnationals like Wal-mart and ExxonMobil are doing fine. There are two Americas: Corporate America (which includes the banks, investors & companies) and everyday America (which is where you and live). We are spectators in this economic boon that Bush speaks of. The true American economy is in shambles and has been for a long time. You can thank the concept of speculative markets for that.*



Most big "transnationals" do not benefit from this war.  Most business interests do not benefit from this war.  Yet, business interests run the GOP do they not?  How can it be that the business-dominated GOP is beholden to such a small, narrow slice of American commerce when it is so much against their interest?  Most banks, investors and companies do not benefit from this war.


----------



## eots (Dec 29, 2007)

Toro said:


> No, including those too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 29, 2007)

Taomon said:


> But it is soooooooo true. You do realize that the news is not the news per se right? The news is opinion shaped by the heads of the owning corporations and by the sponsors.
> 
> You do realize that the military industrial complex has gained strength and is now infiltrating our state department. First response teams will soon beome privatized and run by firms like Blackwater right?
> 
> Rather than being sarcastic and flippant, you should be opening your eyes to what is happening to our country. We should be stopping this at all costs.



You do realize that the problem lies within both parties yet I see Bush hate banter.

You do realize that two Americas is nothing more than class warfare. 

Willingly lied to huh?  No sir, that requires an implied acceptance to all talking heads.  It is our responsibility to reject and do our on homework in regards to what's proffered. Here's a thought, Maybe if everyone quit watching such jewels on the networks such as "Who wants to eat a cockroach" and "Why I want to marry my sister" and tabloid celebrity news and then substituting it with the history and real issues that we're facing we MIGHT just achieve something. 

I don't listen to Rush or Hannity but you're wrong again. The reason they"re successful is because capitalism is working ie, people buying ad time during their time slots. People quit listening, money dries up, talking heads go away. It really is quite simple. 

The true American economy is in shambles?  Hmmm.  Well, if you say so but before you carry on about how all bad greedy corporations have gone overseas let's heap a little criticism on our favorite native Arkansas son and his most favored nation -- yes, that would be China, and your favorite, a republican congress. 

And yes, bombing abortion factory workers is murder, the same as pulling an infant out of the womb with forceps and crushing its skull and then tossing it into a medical waste box where it is then delivered to be incinerated or chemically treated, then shredded up and given a burial in your local landfill.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 29, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Not hardly.  One, that German citizens "knew" is conjecture.  Two, even if they might have known some or all, it's REAL easy for you to sit and judge and blow all kinds of smoke about what you'd stand up to because you don't have a Gestapo agent holding a P-38 to your head.
> 
> You seem to have left out the part where ANYONE so much as questioning the Reich was considered an "enemy of the state."




That gets in the way of Taomans many conspiracies. Lol.


----------



## Toro (Dec 29, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> I don't listen to Rush or Hannity but you're wrong again. The reason they"re successful is because capitalism is working ie, people buying ad time during their time slots. People quit listening, money dries up, talking heads go away. It really is quite simple.



Like Air America for instance.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 29, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> You do realize that the problem lies within both parties yet I see Bush hate banter.
> 
> You do realize that two Americas is nothing more than class warfare.
> 
> ...




Damn ... somebody got SERVED.  It's all over but the


----------



## Taomon (Dec 31, 2007)

Toro said:


> Conservatives feel that the MSM is biased against them - pretty much everything except Fox News and talk radio, the only references you mentioned.  How can this be?  Are they all stupid?  If big corporate media interests are so pro-conservative, why do so many conservatives loathe the media?



*So according to your theory, because they complain about a left-wing conspiracy one must exist? And yet my theories do not? 

Is it because they are on TV and the radio and I am not? Or is it because you do not agree with what I am saying here? What do you base your beliefs on? I am not saying that anyone should blindly follow me or anyone else. 

Open your eyes brother. Seek the truth and you will find it.

And for the record, conservative shows and their talking heads all bemoan the liberal media, not because there is a liberal media that is lying to anyone about anything. It is a disinformation campaign to steer people like you away from the truth.

There is a reason why investigative journalists like Seymour Hirsch and Bill Moyers say what they say and investigate the things that they do...because the media, news and pundits will not even discuss it. To them, these are not issues until we make them issues.

Why? Because it is bad for their business. Their sponsors do not want us talking about the dangers of smoking, drinking, pollution, the war, torture, executive powers run amok, corruption and so on.*


----------



## trobinett (Dec 31, 2007)

Aww, it does my heart good to see two kindred soul's like eots, and Taomon get together.

You guys will have a big time, and can cover each others back, looking out for the helicopters, and black SUV's, yes, your phone lines ARE tapped. 

Do you use public transportation? 

Yep, its a CONSPIRACY!!!!!


----------



## Taomon (Dec 31, 2007)

LordBrownTrout said:


> You do realize that the problem lies within both parties yet I see Bush hate banter.



*Yes I hate Bush, and yes I hate both parties. They are both corrupt. I have seen some good come from both sides, but those actions are few and far between. In fact, the few who try and do the right thing are always attacked by the press and their colleagues.*



LordBrownTrout said:


> You do realize that two Americas is nothing more than class warfare.


 *Realize it? All too well.*



LordBrownTrout said:


> Willingly lied to huh?  No sir, that requires an implied acceptance to all talking heads.  It is our responsibility to reject and do our on homework in regards to what's proffered. Here's a thought, Maybe if everyone quit watching such jewels on the networks such as "Who wants to eat a cockroach" and "Why I want to marry my sister" and tabloid celebrity news and then substituting it with the history and real issues that we're facing we MIGHT just achieve something.


 *And there is a small portion of US society that does just that. You, me, and maybe a thousand or so people. But the vast majority are fed this crap and they willingly raise their spoons for more.

That is why sports and American Idol are so popular. Those are easier pills to swallow than the truth or seeking it.*



LordBrownTrout said:


> I don't listen to Rush or Hannity but you're wrong again. The reason they"re successful is because capitalism is working ie, people buying ad time during their time slots. People quit listening, money dries up, talking heads go away. It really is quite simple.


 *No. Because their shows should be labeled as entertainment and they are not, at least not sufficiently enough that their audience does not realize that their opinions are not informed to any level of integrity.*


LordBrownTrout said:


> The true American economy is in shambles?  Hmmm.  Well, if you say so but before you carry on about how all bad greedy corporations have gone overseas let's heap a little criticism on our favorite native Arkansas son and his most favored nation -- yes, that would be China, and your favorite, a republican congress.


*Clinton was a bad president, as was Reagan and Bush Sr. But the epitome of them all so far is Bush Jr. No one has singlehandedly caused more harm to American than the Bush/Cheney puppet show.*



LordBrownTrout said:


> And yes, bombing abortion factory workers is murder, the same as pulling an infant out of the womb with forceps and crushing its skull and then tossing it into a medical waste box where it is then delivered to be incinerated or chemically treated, then shredded up and given a burial in your local landfill.


*Oh, so that is how abortions are done huh? Here I thought that they were only allowed in the first trimester only and that the fetus does not resemble a human being at that point and could not survive outside of the womb - hence negating the need to crush it's skull.

Though abortions would be a rich source of stem cells for research no?*

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/ab-procedures.htm


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2007)

trobinett said:


> Aww, it does my heart good to see two kindred soul's like eots, and Taomon get together.
> 
> You guys will have a big time, and can cover each others back, looking out for the helicopters, and black SUV's, yes, your phone lines ARE tapped.
> 
> ...



what are you rambling  about now ? is this some strange little fantasy of yours ?


----------



## Toro (Dec 31, 2007)

Taomon said:


> *So according to your theory, because they complain about a left-wing conspiracy one must exist? And yet my theories do not?
> *



No, what I'm saying to you is that you view the world based through a political spectrum that effects how you draw your conclusions.  Conservatives view the world through another political spectrum that effects how they draw their conclusions.  If conservatives viewed the MSM as being "on their side" as you suggest, then they would not be hostile to it.  

The far Left views the media as right-wing based on where they are on the political spectrum.  The far right views the media as left-wing based on where they are on the political spectrum.


----------



## Taomon (Dec 31, 2007)

Toro said:


> No, what I'm saying to you is that you view the world based through a political spectrum that effects how you draw your conclusions.  Conservatives view the world through another political spectrum that effects how they draw their conclusions.  If conservatives viewed the MSM as being "on their side" as you suggest, then they would not be hostile to it.
> 
> The far Left views the media as right-wing based on where they are on the political spectrum.  The far right views the media as left-wing based on where they are on the political spectrum.



*So in YOUR opinion, is there a left-wing media conspiracy or is there a right-wing media conspiracy?

I think that there are biased outlets on both sides and that is what big businesses want for us. They want us arguing about trivial shit so we ignore what is truly going on.

Plus there is a market (on both sides) for political paraphenalia.*


----------



## Toro (Dec 31, 2007)

There is no "conspiracy." 

That's my original point.


----------



## Taomon (Dec 31, 2007)

Toro said:


> There is no "conspiracy."
> 
> That's my original point.



To that I concur that neither the left nor the right have a conspiracy. I do believe that socialist groups of industries via their lobbys do commit conspiracies against us. And the evidence is in the laws.


----------



## CSM (Jan 1, 2008)

Taomon said:


> 9/11 was not the first terrorist attack on US soil. In fact, throughout history America and her citizens have committed terrorist acts.
> 
> The bombing of the Alfred P Murrah Federal building was pinned on Timothy Mc Veigh. He confessed and mainstream America believe that he and Terry Nichols were the sole conspirators. There is a school of thought that puts forth the thesis that the two perpetrators were covering up a larger conspiracy tied to Middle East terror groups. While this may be true, the basic fact is that the bombing was a terrorist attack executed on American soil against American interests. So 9/11 was not the first strike against America on American soil (sorry Noam). But perhaps I am splitting hairs here.
> 
> ...



So, in essence, what you are saying is that the United States and its citizens deserve to be attacked.


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2008)

R. Crookshank said:


> Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
> - Blaise Pascal



George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'


President told Palestinians God also talked to him about Middle East peace 

Ewen MacAskill
Friday October 7, 2005
The Guardian 


George Bush believes he is on a mission from God, according to the politician Nabil Shaath. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP



George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html


----------



## Taomon (Jan 1, 2008)

CSM said:


> So, in essence, what you are saying is that the United States and its citizens deserve to be attacked.



Deserved? No, but we were asking for it. The citizens were complicit and the government acted with evil hubris. Now many of you are no longer complicit, you are cheering the war machine on. You are cheering the terrorism of our state on.


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 1, 2008)

Taomon said:


> To that I concur that neither the left nor the right have a conspiracy. I do believe that socialist groups of industries via their lobbys do commit conspiracies against us. And the evidence is in the laws.



Huh? proof? Actually isn't that the so called free market? or as the piece below demonstrates business as usual for many Americans.

"And to Its Fabled Economy...."

By Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06252007.html
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU[/ame]

"For a number of years Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services and I have documented from BLS nonfarm payroll jobs data that the US economy in the 21st century no longer creates net new jobs in tradable goods and services. In the 21st century, job growth in "the world's only superpower" has a definite third world flavor. US job growth has been limited to domestic services that cannot be moved offshore, such as waitresses and bartenders and health and social services."


----------



## Gunny (Jan 1, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Deserved? No, but we were asking for it. The citizens were complicit and the government acted with evil hubris. Now many of you are no longer complicit, you are cheering the war machine on. You are cheering the terrorism of our state on.



Now we're terrorists ....


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Now we're terrorists ....



wow you finally figured it out !


----------



## Gunny (Jan 1, 2008)

eots said:


> wow you finally figured it out !



Yeah, I figured it out alright.  It's a load of shit.  Not hard to figure THAT out all.


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Yeah, I figured it out alright.  It's a load of shit.  Not hard to figure THAT out all.



a load of shit ?but what about the long history of covert operations to assassinate leaders of other nations ,overthrow governments false flag terror attacks and the murder of American citizens in bio weapon and Mk ultra experiments is that not terrorism ?

OVERTHROW OF PREMIER MOSSADEQ OF IRAN 
November August 1953

Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran ( CIA  report )

http://www.iranonline.com/newsroom/Archive/Mossadeq/

but elements of the government would never orchestrate the deaths of 3000 of its own people to launch there new world order..because big brothers goood and he looooves you.....


U.S. Gov video bio weapon test in New york etc. 


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6GMNd-xN0[/ame]



Declassified MK-Ultra Project Documents:


http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm



 YouTube - CIA MIND CONTROL EXPERIMENTS
Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
8 min - 
 [ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSOOK3tocTk[/ame]


----------



## Gunny (Jan 2, 2008)

eots said:


> a load of shit ?but what about the long history of covert operations to assassinate leaders of other nations ,overthrow governments false flag terror attacks and the murder of American citizens in bio weapon and Mk ultra experiments is that not terrorism ?
> 
> OVERTHROW OF PREMIER MOSSADEQ OF IRAN
> November August 1953
> ...



Do try and come up something other than unsupported conspiracy theories  and or shit that's half a decade old, huh?  

This is bullshit exercise in literalism, nothing more and your newfound compadre doesn't even come close to larkinn, mattskramer, and/or missileman to name few, at playing it.

Neither do you.


----------



## doniston (Jan 2, 2008)

CSM said:


> So, in essence, what you are saying is that the United States and its citizens deserve to be attacked.


To some degree, YES.,  That is the reason Bin Ladin attacked.


----------



## Annie (Jan 2, 2008)

doniston said:


> To some degree, YES.,  That is the reason Bin Ladin attacked.



To what degree, relatively exactly.


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Do try and come up something other than unsupported conspiracy theories  and or shit that's half a decade old, huh?
> 
> This is bullshit exercise in literalism, nothing more and your newfound compadre doesn't even come close to larkinn, mattskramer, and/or missileman to name few, at playing it.
> 
> Neither do you.



only in your supreme ignorance makes it unsupported conspiracy theory's.
these are facts documented, not in dispute, from declassified CIA documents available to anyone


----------



## Taomon (Jan 2, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Now we're terrorists ....



You and I are not, our military are. Our government is. Our corporations are. The CIA definitely is.

Where have you been? They call it low intensity warfare, but it is guerrilla warfare on civilian populations...aka Terrorism.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 2, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You and I are not, our military are. Our government is. Our corporations are. The CIA definitely is.
> 
> Where have you been? They call it low intensity warfare, but it is guerrilla warfare on civilian populations...aka Terrorism.



Where have *I* been?  I was, and still am a part of that "military" you are accusing with your twisted facts.  I spent 20+ years on active duty.  

And you're full of shit.  

'Bout cover it for you?


----------



## Annie (Jan 2, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Where have *I* been?  I was, and still am a part of that "military" you are accusing with your twisted facts.  I spent 20+ years on active duty.
> 
> And you're full of shit.
> 
> 'Bout cover it for you?



I concur. I made that as clear as able to Tao.


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Where have *I* been?  I was, and still am a part of that "military" you are accusing with your twisted facts.  I spent 20+ years on active duty.
> 
> And you're full of shit.
> 
> 'Bout cover it for you?



 and You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill. .... Apocalypse Now (1979)


----------



## Gunny (Jan 2, 2008)

eots said:


> and You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill. .... Apocalypse Now (1979)



Y'think?


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Y'think?



relative to the military industrial complex,elements of our government and the CIA...yes.. my father spent his life in in the intelligence Field , I grew up sitting on the laps of men involved in covert operations through out the world and  they overtime saw themselves as not much more


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

eots said:


> relative to the military industrial complex,elements of our government and the CIA...yes.. my father spent his life in in the intelligence Field , I grew up sitting on the laps of men involved in covert operations through out the world and  they overtime saw themselves as not much more


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


>



ya thats right gunny, what you don't think Intel agents have children and family's and somewhat normal lives ? interpol agents. British sas.Scottish parachute regiment para 5 where what my childhood was full of. not that I ever thought much of it at the time. we lived in Berlin in my early childhood,my father was in Egypt ,Africa the Soviet Union, Palestine ,east Germany and I learned a few things. like how to tell the difference between those that really lived it and the rank and file that like to talk about it .one is much more humble ,reserved when speaking about such matters than the other is the first...CLUE


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 3, 2008)

eots said:


> ya thats right gunny, what you don't think Intel agents have children and family's and somewhat normal lives ? interpol agents. British sas.Scottish parachute regiment para 5 where what my childhood was full of. not that I ever thought much of it at the time. we lived in Berlin in my early childhood,my father was in Egypt ,Africa the Soviet Union, Palestine ,east Germany and I learned a few things. like how to tell the difference between those that really lived it and the rank and file that like to talk about it .one is much more humble ,reserved when speaking about such matters than the other is the first...CLUE



Perhaps you should learn from daddy.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Where have *I* been?  I was, and still am a part of that "military" you are accusing with your twisted facts.  I spent 20+ years on active duty.



Then you know what I am talking about.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

eots said:


> ya thats right gunny, what you don't think Intel agents have children and family's and somewhat normal lives ? interpol agents. British sas.Scottish parachute regiment para 5 where what my childhood was full of. not that I ever thought much of it at the time. we lived in Berlin in my early childhood,my father was in Egypt ,Africa the Soviet Union, Palestine ,east Germany and I learned a few things. like how to tell the difference between those that really lived it and the rank and file that like to talk about it .one is much more humble ,reserved when speaking about such matters than the other is the first...CLUE



Matter of fact, I know they do since my old man was Air Force Security Service and I lived all over the US and Europe.

What you learned was to see things that aren't there.  And you are hardly what could be called humble by any stretch of the imagination.  The basic premise of all your arguments is that you know something no one else does.  Hardly humble, that.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Then you know what I am talking about.



To the contrary ... you don't know what YOU are talking about.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> To the contrary ... you don't know what YOU are talking about.



Yes I do. You don't like what I say because it puts the US in a bad light. I don't like it anymore than you, but hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that we are not evil doesn't make it so. In fact, it makes us even more wrong.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Yes I do. You don't like what I say because it puts the US in a bad light. I don't like it anymore than you, but hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that we are not evil doesn't make it so. In fact, it makes us even more wrong.



This is too funny...

Ok you be the evil American if you want to...and you can even be more wrong....


I'll be the good American that is always right.

Seriously, your assertions based on your views is OPINION. Granted, there are others that hold your opinion or one very like it...that in and of itself does not make your opinion true or correct.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> This is too funny...
> 
> Ok you be the evil American if you want to...and you can even be more wrong....
> 
> ...


I am opinionated. This is true. However, my opinion is based on historical records and current events.

I am not evil, nor do I think most of us are. Our government is controlled by the military industrial complex and that is controlled by the banks. We are spectators in what the US is actually doing and have been for a long time.

I wish I were wrong, but I am not. Why do you find it hard to believe that we commit atrocities? Why do you believe that everyone we kill deserves it?


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I am opinionated. This is true. However, my opinion is based on historical records and current events.
> 
> I am not evil, nor do I think most of us are. Our government is controlled by the military industrial complex and that is controlled by the banks. We are spectators in what the US is actually doing and have been for a long time.
> 
> I wish I were wrong, but I am not. Why do you find it hard to believe that we commit atrocities? Why do you believe that everyone we kill deserves it?



This sounds pretty collective to me:

"...but hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that we are not evil doesn't make it so. In fact, it makes us even more wrong."

Last time I checked, the word we was inclusive of self and others. I choose not to be part of your collective "we".

I do find it hard to believe that "we" commit atrocities. I do not find it hard to believe that "some" commit atrocities. 

If, as you say, "we" are spectators in what the US is actually doing then I suppose we can presume  (based on your previous arguments and those of others) that you are indeed as evil as those who commit such atrocities.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Yes I do. You don't like what I say because it puts the US in a bad light. I don't like it anymore than you, but hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that we are not evil doesn't make it so. In fact, it makes us even more wrong.



No, I don't like what you say because you don't back anything up with any REAL facts.  Nothing but your opinion based on some ultra-extremist liberal agenda.  

So far, you have attempted to villify, and taken stances in opposition to evrything good about this country.  

Basically, you're full of shit and I'm going to call you on it each and every time I see it.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> This is too funny...
> 
> Ok you be the evil American if you want to...and you can even be more wrong....
> 
> ...



That's all he presents, then tells everyone else to prove them wrong.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> This sounds pretty collective to me:
> 
> "...but hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that we are not evil doesn't make it so. In fact, it makes us even more wrong."
> 
> ...


Only if we allow it to continue


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> No, I don't like what you say because you don't back anything up with any REAL facts.  Nothing but your opinion based on some ultra-extremist liberal agenda.
> 
> So far, you have attempted to villify, and taken stances in opposition to evrything good about this country.
> 
> Basically, you're full of shit and I'm going to call you on it each and every time I see it.


Gunny, you never post any facts ever. All you do is try and bark people down that is all. You insult, you bark, you don't even argue, you just disagree.

Last I checked, that doesn't count as truth nor does it count as debate.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> That's all he presents, then tells everyone else to prove them wrong.



Apparently one more poster who delights in bashing the US, proclaiming his moral superiority, overwhelming intellect, and judgemental smugness.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I am opinionated. This is true. However, my opinion is based on historical records and current events.



Present your historical record and/or current events that support your accusations.



> I am not evil, nor do I think most of us are. Our government is controlled by the military industrial complex and that is controlled by the banks. We are spectators in what the US is actually doing and have been for a long time.



OMG NO!  Not the military industrial complex! 




> I wish I were wrong, but I am not. Why do you find it hard to believe that we commit atrocities? Why do you believe that everyone we kill deserves it?



Again, provide your evidence, or links to it or dry up.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> That's all he presents, then tells everyone else to prove them wrong.



Because I want to be wrong about this shit, but I am right about it. I hate that our country does the evil shit that it does. It brings me immense shame. And it endangers us all as 9/11 has proven.

Now the Sauds are getting fed up with us and are courting the Chinese. If ever our country can be destroyed, it may not be militarily but it will most likely be economically.

You have yet to prove me wrong about anything and you always refuse to prove anything you say.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Present your historical record and/or current events that support your accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why gunny, so you can say it doesn't prove anything?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

I researched the Iraq war for a speech about two years ago. There is a wealth of information out there that has been declassified. The State department has a web site that details the Kuwait/British part of my post. It is documented that Margaret Thatcher approached Bush Sr to attack Iraq.

Regarding Saddam Hussein, do a google search for Declassified data on Saddam. There is also a wealth of information when you research the history of Iraq. It was when I was trying to recreate a timeline for Saddam's reign that I came across historical records that detail that Saddam was hired to assassinate the president of Iraq during the late 1970's. He botch the assassination and killed the driver instead. 

However, he was able to take over after the CIA coup was complete, and Saddam fit the bill for us because he served our interests at that time. Doing so we created a monster. The thing is that we are culpable.

Dude, take one day and research it on the Internet for yourself (avoid news articles as much as you can, unless you can get a good mix of left & right sources) and try to get as much as you can from government sites. Try the Congressional Quarterly, the Wall Street Journal, the Central Inteligence Agency, the State Department, the Pentagon, and then go from there.

The truth is out there. I didn't make this shit up. Even the History channel concedes that Saddam was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s and was our ally during the 1980's - when he committed his worst atrocities.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Gunny, you never post any facts ever. All you do is try and bark people down that is all. You insult, you bark, you don't even argue, you just disagree.
> 
> Last I checked, that doesn't count as truth nor does it count as debate.



Wrong.  I post facts to support my arguments.  As I already have said more than twice, I do not however have to provide facts to support YOUR arguments.

D O  Y O U  U N D E R S T A N D  H O W  T O  D E B A T E?  This where you shake your head and "No I don't."  

YOU  make the allegation, YOU support it.  IF and WHEN you support it with only THEN is it encumbent on me to provide contrary evidence.

Hope that is simple enough for you; though, I have my doubts since you've continued to ignore it.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Only if we allow it to continue



Then change it if you can...that is, after all what, democracy is all about. Apparently, those who disagree with you (that would be myself, for example) have the upper hand at the moment.

You and the rest of your "we" may do as you like but do not expect me to agree or encourage your self flagellation. You do seem to enjoy the guilt trip; far be it from me to try to convince you that your mental masturbation, while probably pleasurable, is rather insane.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> Apparently one more poster who delights in bashing the US, proclaiming his moral superiority, overwhelming intellect, and judgemental smugness.



At least most of them TRY to support their arguments with more than just their opinions.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Wrong.  I post facts to support my arguments.  As I already have said more than twice, I do not however have to provide facts to support YOUR arguments.
> 
> D O  Y O U  U N D E R S T A N D  H O W  T O  D E B A T E?  This where you shake your head and "No I don't."
> 
> ...



We have been going toe to toe for a few days now and you never once back up anything you said with any facts at all. You are either stubborn or immature.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Because I want to be wrong about this shit, but I am right about it. I hate that our country does the evil shit that it does. It brings me immense shame. And it endangers us all as 9/11 has proven.
> 
> Now the Sauds are getting fed up with us and are courting the Chinese. If ever our country can be destroyed, it may not be militarily but it will most likely be economically.
> 
> You have yet to prove me wrong about anything and you always refuse to prove anything you say.



Again, provide evidence.  Your opinion does not count as fact nor evidence.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

http://taomon.50g.com/Terrorism/iraq war.doc

My speech.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Again, provide evidence.  Your opinion does not count as fact nor evidence.



And I have many times and yet you cannot bother to read it without instantly dismissing it.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://taomon.50g.com/Terrorism/iraq war.doc
> 
> My speech.



GMAFB.  An oped by you is evidence?  Dude, just go away. You are a joke.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> And I have many times and yet you cannot bother to read it without instantly dismissing it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Read up on this think tank


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> And I have many times and yet you cannot bother to read it without instantly dismissing it.




You have not ONCE provided anything but your opinion.  That doesn't count for shit.  What's it take for you to understand that simple little concept?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
> Read up on this think tank



http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/c2400.htm
Read up on Kuwait. Notice that British Petroleum owns half of Kuwaiti Oil company. Gosh I wonder why Margaret Thatcher insisted on the first Gulf War.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/c2400.htm
> Read up on Kuwait. Notice that British Petroleum owns half of Kuwaiti Oil company. Gosh I wonder why Margaret Thatcher insisted on the first Gulf War.



http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html
I know the source is biased, but read the article and check further if you don't believe it. I think most of you remember this scandal.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 3, 2008)

"The year 1974 marked a key turning point for Kuwait's oil industry. During that year Kuwait implemented the democratic will of its people and acquired 60% of KOC from BP and Gulf Oil. In addition, the Supreme Petroleum Council was formed to oversee the country's oil interests. The following year, the Ministry of Oil was established in its own right, separate from the Ministry of Finance. The private sector's 40% of KNPC was acquired, followed by the remaining 40% of KOC. In 1976, the government acquired all of PIC and 49% of KOTC. In 1977, the Mina Abdullah refinery was acquired from AMINOIL. With the acquisition in 1979 of the remaining 51% of KOTC, the four major operating companies - KOC, KNPC, KOTC and PIC - were fully under State control. For the first time in history, the major elements of Kuwait's oil industry were in the hands of its people."

http://www.kpc.com.kw/www/h_default.htm


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/c2400.htm
> Read up on Kuwait. Notice that British Petroleum owns half of Kuwaiti Oil company. Gosh I wonder why Margaret Thatcher insisted on the first Gulf War.




Since I was IN Kuwait more than a few times, and the First Gulf War, you can bet your ass I've "read up" on it.

Are you trying to sham everyone by making them think you are providing a link to something that supports your argument when it's nothing but a map of Kuwait?

Saddam invaded Kuwait and Kuwait came to the US for help.  We in turn enlisted the UN and most Arab nations to support us.  

Get a grip.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html
> I know the source is biased, but read the article and check further if you don't believe it. I think most of you remember this scandal.



Ummm ... no.  A site labeled "antiwar" is not an unbiased source of information.

But it's probably where YOU get yours from.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 3, 2008)

As you can see from my previous post, Taomon, you stopped reading when you saw what you wanted to see.  BP owned a joint interest in KPC in 1934, when the company was formed.

That was no longer the case well before the first gulf war.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cohen1.html
> I know the source is biased, but read the article and check further if you don't believe it. I think most of you remember this scandal.



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
Just one source for this.

Another is http://www.history.com/minisite.do?...ay_order=6&sub_display_order=12&mini_id=51673


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Since I was IN Kuwait more than a few times, and the First Gulf War, you can bet your ass I've "read up" on it.
> 
> Are you trying to sham everyone by making them think you are providing a link to something that supports your argument when it's nothing but a map of Kuwait?
> 
> ...



No, the State department site has links to detailed info. Kuwait did not ask for help, Britain did.

Had we done the right thing we would have waited for a Security Council Resolution to attack Iraq - instead we went to war without the proper legal approval.

You get a grip sir


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> "The year 1974 marked a key turning point for Kuwait's oil industry. During that year Kuwait implemented the democratic will of its people and acquired 60% of KOC from BP and Gulf Oil. In addition, the Supreme Petroleum Council was formed to oversee the country's oil interests. The following year, the Ministry of Oil was established in its own right, separate from the Ministry of Finance. The private sector's 40% of KNPC was acquired, followed by the remaining 40% of KOC. In 1976, the government acquired all of PIC and 49% of KOTC. In 1977, the Mina Abdullah refinery was acquired from AMINOIL. With the acquisition in 1979 of the remaining 51% of KOTC, the four major operating companies - KOC, KNPC, KOTC and PIC - were fully under State control. For the first time in history, the major elements of Kuwait's oil industry were in the hands of its people."
> 
> http://www.kpc.com.kw/www/h_default.htm



How horribly inconvenient! Damn the facts anyway!


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
> Just one source for this.
> 
> Another is http://www.history.com/minisite.do?...ay_order=6&sub_display_order=12&mini_id=51673



You are all over the place ... again ... and making no sense ... again.

Saddam gassed Kurds.  This proves the US is a terrorist state.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon's own link notes that the oil company was nationalized in the 1970s...


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No, the State department site has links to detailed info. Kuwait did not ask for help, Britain did.
> 
> Had we done the right thing we would have waited for a Security Council Resolution to attack Iraq - instead we went to war without the proper legal approval.
> 
> You get a grip sir



http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/9/the_reagan_saddam_connection_we_create


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No, the State department site has links to detailed info. Kuwait did not ask for help, Britain did.
> 
> Had we done the right thing we would have waited for a Security Council Resolution to attack Iraq - instead we went to war without the proper legal approval.
> 
> You get a grip sir



Bad news for you...the UN does not run this country nor have the power to approve a declaration of war for this nation. That would be power reserved for the Congress.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> You are all over the place ... again ... and making no sense ... again.
> 
> Saddam gassed Kurds.  This proves the US is a terrorist state.



Saddam gassed Kurds when he was our ally and he gassed Kurds while we stood and watched when the Gulf War was barely over.

He used gas that we sold him.

Yes, that makes us evil.


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Ummm ... no.  A site labeled "antiwar" is not an unbiased source of information.
> 
> But it's probably where YOU get yours from.



I agree with you but I still looked at the web sites article.  It suggests that an alleged witness lied to congress about atrocities committed by Iraqi soldiers.  It also says that the invasion of Kuwait was not very bloody.  

Even if the article is completely accurate, I think that the first Iraq War was justified. In a sense, Iraq took Kuwait and we made Iraq put it back.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Saddam gassed Kurds when he was our ally and he gassed Kurds while we stood and watched when the Gulf War was barely over.
> 
> He used gas that we sold him.
> 
> Yes, that makes us evil.



I bet you will be glad when you graduate from school. I just have to ask:  What grade did you receive for that paper you wrote?


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No, the State department site has links to detailed info. Kuwait did not ask for help, Britain did.
> 
> Had we done the right thing we would have waited for a Security Council Resolution to attack Iraq - instead we went to war without the proper legal approval.
> 
> You get a grip sir





> Iraqi forces invade Kuwait August 2 after Kuwait refuses demands by President Saddam Hussein that she pay compensation for allegedly drilling oil on Iraqi territory, cede disputed land, reduce oil output, and raise prices. Kuwait has rebuffed Iraqi demands that she forgive $15 billion in loans extended during the Iraq-Iran war. The Bush administration has told Saddam Hussein that it has no treaty obligation to defend Kuwait and would not take sides (Saddam has interpreted remarks by U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Gillespie that Washington would not oppose him), but Washington, Moscow, Tokyo, London, Teheran, and Beijing unite in denouncing his move and the United Nations Security Council votes 13 to 0 August 6 to impose economic sanctions (Yemen and Cuba abstain). Iraq masses troops on the border of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh agrees to receive U.S. ground and air forces. President Bush says Iraq's aggression "will not stand" and dispatches forces to Saudi Arabia August 7, risking his presidency. Iraq annexes Kuwait August 8 and proceeds to loot the country; Egypt, Syria, Morocco, and nine other Arab states vote August 10 to oppose Iraq with military force; Saddam Hussein calls for a "holy war" against Westerners and Zionists, gaining wide popular support among Arabs; he holds more than 10,000 foreigners hostage beginning August 18 but permits women and children to leave August 29 and releases all the others by early December as the standoff continues. Kuwait's billionaire emir Sheik Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah, 64, has narrowly escaped capture and fled to Saudi Arabia; he addresses the United Nations General Assembly September 27, urging it to stand by the sanctions it has imposed. His relatives have acted swiftly to keep Kuwaiti funds abroad out of Saddam Hussein's hands. Bush ups the ante November 8 (2 days after the elections), committing far more U.S. forces to "Operation Desert Shield," but popular opposition grows to launching any offensive action (see 1991).
> 
> Iraq's Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, refused to withdraw, and brought the United Nations down on his head.
> The United Nations Security Council votes November 29 to authorize members to use all necessary force to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait if they remain there after January 15, the first such resolution since the Korean conflict in 1950. President Bush reverses his position November 30 and agrees to talks with Saddam Hussein and his foreign minister.
> ...



Try again.  Kuwait went to the UN.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> Bad news for you...the UN does not run this country nor have the power to approve a declaration of war for this nation. That would be power reserved for the Congress.



Wrong, we are not a rogue state. The UN is supposed to give authorization for military actions. Any country that acts unilaterly is a rogue state.

We invaded Panama, Saddam invaded Kuwait. What is the difference between the two? Well for one, we are citizens of America so we consider our own acts of terrorism to be justified because we are somehow the better person (collectively).

But anyone else acting in the same manner, that doesn't suit our interests, is demonized. For example, Israel. They invaded Pakistan and Lebabon and they attack civilians daily. Yet we side with Israel and demonize Pakistan and Lebanon.

What if America was invaded by China? We would all commit to guerilla warfare I am sure. That would be deemed terrorist attacks to the Chinese, but in our eyes we would be considered national heros.

But the tables are turned in Iraq, Lebanon, and Pakistan where we or our ally is the aggressor and the insurgency is a brown Muslim.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Saddam gassed Kurds when he was our ally and he gassed Kurds while we stood and watched when the Gulf War was barely over.
> 
> He used gas that we sold him.
> 
> Yes, that makes us evil.



Wrong.  If I sell you a gun and you murder someone with it, that makes YOU evil, not me.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> I bet you will be glad when you graduate from school. I just have to ask:  What grade did you receive for that paper you wrote?



I received an A. That was a speech class and part of my bachelor's program. I am switching schools so that will set me back a bit.

Yes, I cannot wait to graduate.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> ...
> He used gas that we sold him.



OOPS!

"By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack


I guess you and your friends have lots of evil company!


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Try again.  Kuwait went to the UN.



And Thatcher went to Bush Sr.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/commentary/displaydocument.asp?docid=110711


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Wrong.  If I sell you a gun and you murder someone with it, that makes YOU evil, not me.



Unless you sold it to me knowing that I was a psycho and that people would definetly be killed by it


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> OOPS!
> 
> "By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[4]"
> 
> ...


So who posted that data to wikipedia, Paul Wolfowitz?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Unless you sold it to me knowing that I was a psycho and that people would definetly be killed by it



And I doubt you want to make the assinine assumption that the US had no idea that Saddam was going to harm people with that gas.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I agree with you but I still looked at the web sites article.  It suggests that an alleged witness lied to congress about atrocities committed by Iraqi soldiers.  It also says that the invasion of Kuwait was not very bloody.
> 
> Even if the article is completely accurate, I think that the first Iraq War was justified. In a sense, Iraq took Kuwait and we made Iraq put it back.



The article is not accurate.  The witness who testified before Congress told the truth.

I was there.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Wrong, we are not a rogue state. The UN is supposed to give authorization for military actions. Any country that acts unilaterly is a rogue state.
> 
> We invaded Panama, Saddam invaded Kuwait. What is the difference between the two? Well for one, we are citizens of America so we consider our own acts of terrorism to be justified because we are somehow the better person (collectively).
> 
> ...



We are an autonomous nation, no matter what you left-wingnuts dream up.  There is no One World Order yet.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/thatcher/1.html


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> But anyone else acting in the same manner, that doesn't suit our interests, is demonized. For example, Israel. They invaded Pakistan and Lebabon and they attack civilians daily. Yet we side with Israel and demonize Pakistan and Lebanon.


Israel invaded Pakistan.  Now this why nobody takes anything you say seriously. Israel has never invaded Pakistan. You obviously do know squat...so sit back and learn something from these vets and show a little humility.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Wrong, we are not a rogue state. The UN is supposed to give authorization for military actions. Any country that acts unilaterly is a rogue state.
> 
> Horse crap. I have read the Constitution of this country many times as well as the charter of the UN. I have never seen any document that subverts the soveriegnty of this nation or any other to the UN.
> 
> ...



I have to admit that your point of view is so very typical of a college student.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Israel invaded Pakistan.  Now this why nobody takes anything you say seriously. Israel has never invaded Pakistan. You obviously do know squat...so sit back and learn something from these vets and show a little humility.



His cup runneth over, MasterChief.  He's so busy knowing he doesn't hear a word.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> I have to admit that your point of view is so very typical of a college student.



College student wasn't quite the word I was thinking ...


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So who posted that data to wikipedia, Paul Wolfowitz?



Do you see the little numbers in brackets? Those would be references....you can look them up...or didn't they get to that part in your classes yet?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The article is not accurate.  The witness who testified before Congress told the truth.
> 
> I was there.



The witness was the neice of the ambassador. It was a fix. She lied for the Kuwaiti royal family.

Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Do you know? Because of an ongoing border disagreement. Kuwait believed that they owned a larger patch of land than Saddam was contending. I don't know who is right or wrong on that, but the two countries had been claiming and reclaiming that land for years, sometimes militarily.

Saddam was doing what he always did, forcibily taking back what he believed was his. I don't condone Saddam. He was a monster and I am glad he is dead. But his death left his country in a vacuum because we had no contingency plan. We destroyed the infrastructure and now we are hostile occupiers.

So Saddam was demonized - The Kuwaiti's had a royal family member lie to Congress, Bush declared Saddam a demon and we wen to war without UN approval.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> College student wasn't quite the word I was thinking ...



Most college students are that as well. Since they are pampered and protected from the real world while they are in that environment, they have the luxury of being idealistic (and arrogant as well as ignorant).


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> We are an autonomous nation, no matter what you left-wingnuts dream up.  There is no One World Order yet.



But there are International Laws that prevent countries from invading other countries. We are a rogue state because we do not care what the rest of the world says. We do as we say and what we say goes.

That is a dangerous toy and the wrong man is in charge of that now. In fact we have been steered in the wrong direction for decades, so my contention is that it is not the president that actually calls the shots. The Banks, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the military industrial complex pretty much steer policy. Lobbies for the big industries also control our legislative branches.

This is a fiefdom.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon:

The first gulf war was authorized by the U.N.

The security council authorized it by a vote of 12 to 2 with China abstaining.

Are you aware of that?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Israel invaded Pakistan.  Now this why nobody takes anything you say seriously. Israel has never invaded Pakistan. You obviously do know squat...so sit back and learn something from these vets and show a little humility.



What do you call the West Bank and the Gaza strip? These vets are brainwashed. They believe anything the Commander in Chief tells them because that is what the military conditioned them to do.

Smarten up dude.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 3, 2008)

CSM said:


> I have to admit that your point of view is so very typical of a college student.



But not of a man who has seen, read, and heard enough in his life to realize what is happening?


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> But there are International Laws that prevent countries from invading other countries. We are a rogue state because we do not care what the rest of the world says. We do as we say and what we say goes.
> 
> That is a dangerous toy and the wrong man is in charge of that now. In fact we have been steered in the wrong direction for decades, so my contention is that it is not the president that actually calls the shots. The Banks, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the military industrial complex pretty much steer policy. Lobbies for the big industries also control our legislative branches.
> 
> This is a fiefdom.



Hmmm...so I guess that once you graduate, you will either open your own business or work for some company that is not connected to the CIA/Pentagon/Banks/Military Industrial complex or any other industry that has lobbiests. Good for you!


----------



## mattskramer (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> The witness was the neice of the ambassador. It was a fix. She lied for the Kuwaiti royal family.
> 
> Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Do you know? Because of an ongoing border disagreement. Kuwait believed that they owned a larger patch of land than Saddam was contending. I don't know who is right or wrong on that, but the two countries had been claiming and reclaiming that land for years, sometimes militarily.
> 
> ...



Perhaps the alleged witness lied.  Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait was not very bloody.  Answer me yes-or-no:  All things considered, do you think that America was justified in helping free Kuwait from Iraq?


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> But not of a man who has seen, read, and heard enough in his life to realize what is happening?



Very astute of you, though I don't know why you put a question mark at the end of a statement.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 3, 2008)

Matt:

There's no point in even asking him that.  His entire argument is based on a mistake.  The UN authorized the first gulf war.  I don't know why Taomon thinks they didn't.  Probably the same reason he thought BP owned 50% of KPC at the time.


----------



## CSM (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> What do you call the West Bank and the Gaza strip? These vets are brainwashed. They believe anything the Commander in Chief tells them because that is what the military conditioned them to do.
> 
> Smarten up dude.



College students are conditoned to be liberal. They will believe anything their  professors tell them...it's what college conditions them to do.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> The witness was the neice of the ambassador. It was a fix. She lied for the Kuwaiti royal family.
> 
> Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Do you know? Because of an ongoing border disagreement. Kuwait believed that they owned a larger patch of land than Saddam was contending. I don't know who is right or wrong on that, but the two countries had been claiming and reclaiming that land for years, sometimes militarily.
> 
> ...




I am not the niece of anybody, jerkoff, and I know what I saw and STILL see in the middle of the freakin' night, jackass.  Do tell us what it was you saw with your own two eyes ....

Do you know ANYTHING?  Saddam invade Kuwait because he claimed the oil Kuwait was pumping came from an oil field in Iraq, and that Kuwait was a historic province of Iraq.

Saddam demonized himself by invading an "arab brother" and getting the other Arab nations up in arms over his actions.

You have got to be one of the most uneducated fruitloops I've ever encountered.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Why did Saddam invade Kuwait? Do you know? Because of an ongoing border disagreement.


No...that is incorrect.  You are accepting the Iraqi propaganda the Iraqis put out right after the invasion. There is a book you need to read, written by Middle Easterners, *Saddam: A Political Biography*. The research shows that it had nothing to do with borders, it had everything to do with money.  Kuwait loaned Saddam over six billion dollars to finance his war against Iran. When the war was over he felt since his nation had provided the blood in stopping the Ayatollah from taking over the Gulf and the Gulf states should provide the treasure. He wanted Kuwait to forgive the loan. Not only did Kuwait say no, but they depressed the world price of oil which made it harder for Iraq to rise the funds to pay off the debt. Saddam went nuts and basically decided to rob the bank that give him the loan. So the border stuff is just a ruse that is now often mindlessly repeated.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> No...that is incorrect.  You are accepting the Iraqi propaganda the Iraqis put out right after the invasion. There is a book you need to read, written by Middle Easterners, *Saddam: A Political Biography*. The research shows that it had nothing to do with borders, it had everything to do with money.  Kuwait loaned Saddam over six billion dollars to finance his war against Iran. When the war was over he felt since his nation had provided the blood in stopping the Ayatollah from taking over the Gulf and the Gulf states should provide the treasure. He wanted Kuwait to forgive the loan. Not only did Kuwait say no, but they depressed the world price of oil which made it harder for Iraq to rise the funds to pay off the debt. Saddam went nuts and basically decided to rob the bank that give him the loan. So the border stuff is just a ruse that is now often mindlessly repeated.



With friends like the Kuwaitis, who needs enemies...


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> With friends like the Kuwaitis, who needs enemies...



Point, but a separate issue in and of itself.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Point, but a separate issue in and of itself.



I know. People sometimes forget Saddam was the West's pitbull..under he outlived his usefulness...Or that the Kuwait/Iraq thang was about one big dictator taking on a little dictator...


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> With friends like the Kuwaitis, who needs enemies...


What do you know about the Kuwaitis? Have you ever met a Kuwaiti, have you been there? I have on both cases. Americans trapped in Kuwait City were protected by Kuwaitis, they provided important Intel and many Kuwaitis resisted the invasion at the great risk. I'd sit and eat a meal with a Kuwaiti any day of the week and am happy to have several as a friends.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> What do you know about the Kuwaitis? Have you ever met a Kuwaiti, have you been there? I have on both cases. Americans trapped in Kuwait City were protected by Kuwaitis, they provided important Intel and many Kuwaitis resisted the invasion at the great risk. I'd sit and eat a meal with a Kuwaiti any day of the week and am happy to have several as a friends.



I wasn't talking about the Kuwaiti people but it's govt. I'd say exactly the same above re everyday Iraqis and Iranians, but not their government.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I know. People sometimes forget Saddam was the West's pitbull..under he outlived his usefulness...Or that the Kuwait/Iraq thang was about one big dictator taking on a little dictator...



C'mon now. Grump ... keep up.  We just went through that for a couple of pages.  I wouldn't say he was our pitbull, but so long as he was beating on Iran might as well try to help him out.  

As the MasterChief pointed out, that was fine until he invaded Kuwait and the situation changed.  Once the situation changed, it's only right that we changed as well.

I personally don't know why some act like we were bed-buddies with him while others act like we never gave him a dime.  Fact is, he was doing beating up on someone we wanted beat up so we gave him some support.  When he went against our interests, we supported what was in our best interest.  Common sense.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> What do you know about the Kuwaitis? Have you ever met a Kuwaiti, have you been there? I have on both cases. Americans trapped in Kuwait City were protected by Kuwaitis, they provided important Intel and many Kuwaitis resisted the invasion at the great risk. I'd sit and eat a meal with a Kuwaiti any day of the week and am happy to have several as a friends.



While I agree with you mostly, I have to draw the line with the royals.  I never cared too much for them, but I can say the same for the royals in all Arab nations.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> C'mon now. Grump ... keep up.  We just went through that for a couple of pages.  I wouldn't say he was our pitbull, but so long as he was beating on Iran might as well try to help him out.
> 
> As the MasterChief pointed out, that was fine until he invaded Kuwait and the situation changed.  Once the situation changed, it's only right that we changed as well.
> 
> I personally don't know why some act like we were bed-buddies with him while others act like we never gave him a dime.  Fact is, he was doing beating up on someone we wanted beat up so we gave him some support.  When he went against our interests, we supported what was in our best interest.  Common sense.




Absolutely. You know this. I know this. Politically nobody can say so though because it would go against the "perception" of America being the good guy. So we have to live this little game whereby the politicos pretend it was about something it wasn't etc, etc, which leads to breeding of urban myths and conspiracy theories. Wonder how the public would react if Bush Snr had actually come out and said "Hey, the world oil prices are fucked with this invasion and it is gonna impact on all world economies. We gave this dipshit a helping hand to fight an Islamic state that put egg on our faces a few years back, but now he's gonna stuff it up for everybody so we're gonna kick is butt". See, I could live with that. Honest and open. People can then make their decisions from there. Of course it would give all the peaceniks ammo, but at least it would be a better starting point IMO...


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Absolutely. You know this. I know this. Politically nobody can say so though because it would go against the "perception" of America being the good guy. So we have to live this little game whereby the politicos pretend it was about something it wasn't etc, etc, which leads to breeding of urban myths and conspiracy theories. Wonder how the public would react if Bush Snr had actually come out and said "Hey, the world oil prices are fucked with this invasion and it is gonna impact on all world economies. We gave this dipshit a helping hand to fight an Islamic state that put egg on our faces a few years back, but now he's gonna stuff it up for everybody so we're gonna kick is butt". See, I could live with that. Honest and open. People can then make their decisions from there. Of course it would give all the peaceniks ammo, but at least it would be a better starting point IMO...



I really wasn't aware it was believed any differently except by political hacks.  We supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.  That is fact.  We opposed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait because it got all the people that sell us oil upset and he was a threat to our interests in the region.  

I have no problem with that and in each case, I believe we did the right thing.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I really wasn't aware it was believed any differently except by political hacks.  We supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.  That is fact.  We opposed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait because it got all the people that sell us oil upset and he was a threat to our interests in the region.
> 
> I have no problem with that and in each case, I believe we did the right thing.



Morally you did the right thing by the Kuwaiti people, but what it does bring up is where do you draw the line with regard to peoples' perception of you? I know most military personal don't really give a shit about what hte world things about the US, but a lot of people do


----------



## Gunny (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Morally you did the right thing by the Kuwaiti people, but what it does bring up is where do you draw the line with regard to peoples' perception of you? I know most military personal don't really give a shit about what hte world things about the US, but a lot of people do



I don't care what "the world" thinks because all too often "the world" demands, whines and cries (tsunamis come to mind) "what's the US going to do?" but don't DARE let us want something or try to do something on our own.  Then we're just "immoral cowboys, warmongerers, etc).

Since removing Saddam from Kuwait was a UN endorsed action, and supported by most Arab states, I would think the workd's perception really should reflect just that.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I don't care what "the world" thinks because all too often "the world" demands, whines and cries (tsunamis come to mind) "what's the US going to do?" but don't DARE let us want something or try to do something on our own.  Then we're just "immoral cowboys, warmongerers, etc).
> 
> Since removing Saddam from Kuwait was a UN endorsed action, and supported by most Arab states, I would think the workd's perception really should reflect just that.



Thing is Gunny, tonnes of countries help out poorer areas and rarely ask for anything in return. The US gives off the impression people should bow and scrap to them if they help out. You should either help out with no strings or not help out at all.

Also, you can't go around stating you are the paragon of virtue and freedom when you do things that have an adverse affect on people (Chile comes to mind and Central America in the 80s). While you and I know no country is perfect in that regard, from down here, the one country where it is shouted loud and clear the most by all politicians is the USA. We can only go by what you guys say.

BTW, I didn't hear any bitching and moaning from down this way from any country about the US's help with regard to the tsunami. Thought all help was gratefully received.

I think the US is in an unenviable position. Being the biggest kid on the block - a democracy/republic to boot - means you are open to the most criticism. Once your country's time is up (and let's face it, all "empires" eventually decline), it'll be the turn of somebody else (my guess is China or India within the next 150-200 years)..

Off now. Spot you later Gunny.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> While I agree with you mostly, I have to draw the line with the royals.  I never cared too much for them, but I can say the same for the royals in all Arab nations.


Very true prior to the war, but afterwards they had to liberal up things.  And it was very hard for them to say "no" to women asking for more equality when they had fought to liberate the country.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Morally you did the right thing by the Kuwaiti people, but what it does bring up is where do you draw the line with regard to peoples' perception of you?


Have you not read *The Prince* by Niccolo Machiavelli?  I thought that was required reading in both high school and college.  It was for me.


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2008)

The Secret Government (CIA Overthrow of Mossadeq


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaGCJmCAJ40[/ame]


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 4, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Have you not read *The Prince* by Niccolo Machiavelli?  I thought that was required reading in both high school and college.  It was for me.



I am a New Zealander, so the book was not required reading at any level here although I am aware of The Prince and who Machiavelli was. And? Is that book the bible of how politics should be in the world?


----------



## Psychoblues (Jan 4, 2008)

Murder by Americans don't matter to these idiots, DG.  Post a comprehensive examination of most any subject and watch them go like dogs for a single piece of meat (as they perceive it) and ignore the rest of the very rich nutrients of the example.

It's comical, don't you know?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  That's why I come here often.  It really does beat the hell out of the shallowness of FoxNews.  These cats reduce it even further to more gutteral and hilarious screeds of otherwise uninformed yet intense pleas for somehow forgiveness.  

It kicks my ass!!!!!!!!!!  What about you?!!!?!?!?!?!??!?!!?!?!


----------



## eots (Jan 4, 2008)

Spies, Communism, and Bananas: How and Why the CIA overthrew a government that led to 40 years of brutal repression : Part Three of the Cold War unit 

A note: I recommend using all three parts of this lesson plan so students get a real feel for the period, but if you don't have time any of them can be done separately. 

Grades: 9th-12th

Time:

A. Coup overview research to select topic: one day 
B. Research and presentation writing: two weeks 
C. Presentation: 10-15 minutes per student 
Overview: In 1954, a CIA-backed coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala and established a brutal military dictatorship in its place. Though the U.S. denied its participation at the time, the evidence is overwhelming, particularly since the Freedom of Information Act has made available many documents which leave little doubt of U.S. involvement. In early 1999, President Clinton even made an almost apology for the U.S. role in Guatemalan politics. 


The coup resulted in 40 years of repression and the killing of over 200,000 Guatemalans. 

The reported motivation for the violent coup was Jacobo Arbenz's communist leanings. He had the support of communists for many of his policies, including his desire to provide land to the many poor, landless peasants. He also encouraged unions among the workers at United Fruit Company, a United States based firm that had a stranglehold on much of Guatemala. United Fruit was very displeased with Arbenz's election and sought to undermine his government by pressuring the U.S. government to take action, and providing money to fund that action. In 1954, they finally got their wish. 

Materials: Internet and library access. 

Objectives:

 Acquire a thorough understanding of the CIA-backed overthrow of Guatemala 
 Practice good research skills 
 Gain confidence in delivering effective oral presentations

Activities:

A. Have students deliver short (10 or 15 minute) talks on different aspects of the Guatemalan coup. Give them a day to come up with their own topic after reviewing some of the sites below. Some topic suggestions (all have corresponding web sites below




http://www.nancymatson.com/CLDWR3.HTM


----------



## Psychoblues (Jan 4, 2008)

It don't get much more clear, eots.




eots said:


> Spies, Communism, and Bananas: How and Why the CIA overthrew a government that led to 40 years of brutal repression : Part Three of the Cold War unit
> 
> A note: I recommend using all three parts of this lesson plan so students get a real feel for the period, but if you don't have time any of them can be done separately.
> 
> ...



Do you actually think any of these idiots will absorb any of it?  Uh,,,,,If you can absorb it, I wasn't talking about you.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3269531,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/795327.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22900&Cr=rights&Cr1=council

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E...F6E82E6D19674ABBC1257360003E6E0B?OpenDocument

http://www.un.org/news/dh/pdf/english/2007/26102007.pdf


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Perhaps the alleged witness lied.  Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait was not very bloody.  Answer me yes-or-no:  All things considered, do you think that America was justified in helping free Kuwait from Iraq?



No


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> Very astute of you, though I don't know why you put a question mark at the end of a statement.



Because I was asking you - as in, don't you see me as...


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> College students are conditoned to be liberal. They will believe anything their  professors tell them...it's what college conditions them to do.



No, the teachers I had so far were all business professors and very conservative.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I am not the niece of anybody, jerkoff, and I know what I saw and STILL see in the middle of the freakin' night, jackass.  Do tell us what it was you saw with your own two eyes ....
> 
> Do you know ANYTHING?  Saddam invade Kuwait because he claimed the oil Kuwait was pumping came from an oil field in Iraq, and that Kuwait was a historic province of Iraq.
> 
> ...


Gunny, the witness I was speaking of was the 15 year old volunteer from the hospital, not you. This is just more evidenc that all you do is blindly disagree with everything I post. That is not debating and that is not proof that I am wrong. You are just barking like an anonymous dog in the night.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html

"NARRATOR: But the most compelling testimony came from an anonymous 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl. 

2nd WITNESS: _volunteered at the Aladein hospital with 12 other women who wanted to help, as well. 

NARRATOR: She said she witnessed first-hand Iraqi soldiers removing Kuwaiti babies from hospital incubators and then stealing the incubators. 

2nd WITNESS: While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor! 

Rep. JOHN PORTER, (R) ILLINOIS: We have never heard in all this time, in all circumstances, a record of inhumanity and brutality and sadism as the ones that the witnesses have given us today. 

NARRATOR: Only later was it discovered that the girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and that there were doubts about whether she had actually seen the events she described."


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> No...that is incorrect.  You are accepting the Iraqi propaganda the Iraqis put out right after the invasion. There is a book you need to read, written by Middle Easterners, *Saddam: A Political Biography*. The research shows that it had nothing to do with borders, it had everything to do with money.  Kuwait loaned Saddam over six billion dollars to finance his war against Iran. When the war was over he felt since his nation had provided the blood in stopping the Ayatollah from taking over the Gulf and the Gulf states should provide the treasure. He wanted Kuwait to forgive the loan. Not only did Kuwait say no, but they depressed the world price of oil which made it harder for Iraq to rise the funds to pay off the debt. Saddam went nuts and basically decided to rob the bank that give him the loan. So the border stuff is just a ruse that is now often mindlessly repeated.


And who, praytell is the author of this book that proves Saddam is wrong and the Kuwaitis right? Efraim Karsh who has an anti-Islamic agenda. It is okay to be anti-Islamic, it is another thing to allow that bias to distort facts to fit your agenda.


----------



## CSM (Jan 4, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No, the teachers I had so far were all business professors and very conservative.



You missed the point. Let me be a bit more blunt. My statement was a parody of your assertion that vets are conditioned in a certain way...the implication is that students are conditioned in a certain way.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 4, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Gunny, the witness I was speaking of was the 15 year old volunteer from the hospital, not you. This is just more evidenc that all you do is blindly disagree with everything I post. That is not debating and that is not proof that I am wrong. You are just barking like an anonymous dog in the night.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_a.html
> 
> ...



Opinions that agree with your opinions are not fact.  I don't "blindly" disagree with you.  You're just pretty damned dumb on most every topic you've tried to argue, and you don't even understand the basic rules of debate.  Nothing blind about that.  It's obvious, and all over this board.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 4, 2008)

Taomon said:


> And who, praytell is the author of this book that proves Saddam is wrong and the Kuwaitis right? Efraim Karsh who has an anti-Islamic agenda. It is okay to be anti-Islamic, it is another thing to allow that bias to distort facts to fit your agenda.



Let's see ... are you not the one that says "never kill" is your standard operating procedure?  

Yet, despite all your peacenik crap in one thread, you're okay with a thug using force of arms to invade, subjugate, and rape a sovereign nation?  

Something you don't seem to comprehend from one thread to another is the unprovoked aggressor is the one who is wrong.  

You trying to defind him with the poor man's version of a relativist argument simply because it disagree the the US's stance are equally in the wrong.

One can only marvel at YOU accusing ANYONE of distorting facts to fit your agenda since I'm still awaiting your presentation of your FIRST unbiased fact.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> You missed the point. Let me be a bit more blunt. My statement was a parody of your assertion that vets are conditioned in a certain way...the implication is that students are conditioned in a certain way.



He misses everyone's point.  He's too steeped in his own bullshit rhetoric to hear a word anyone else says.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

CSM said:


> You missed the point. Let me be a bit more blunt. My statement was a parody of your assertion that vets are conditioned in a certain way...the implication is that students are conditioned in a certain way.



I know. The thing about printed words is that sarcasm can be missed. My reply was sarcastic.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Opinions that agree with your opinions are not fact.  I don't "blindly" disagree with you.  You're just pretty damned dumb on most every topic you've tried to argue, and you don't even understand the basic rules of debate.  Nothing blind about that.  It's obvious, and all over this board.



You blindly disagree with everything I say. If I said the sky was blue you would say it was gray and then tell me I was stupid.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Let's see ... are you not the one that says "never kill" is your standard operating procedure?
> 
> Yet, despite all your peacenik crap in one thread, you're okay with a thug using force of arms to invade, subjugate, and rape a sovereign nation?
> 
> ...



NO I don't condone the US invading, raping and subjugating a soveriegn nation, nor do I condone England doing nor do I condone Israel. I think I made that pretty friggen clear numbnuts.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 4, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> He misses everyone's point.  He's too steeped in his own bullshit rhetoric to hear a word anyone else says.



Look who is talking. I was posting a statement about the Kuwaiti neice of the Ambassador who testified to Congress about alleged atrocities committed by the Iraqi army when they invaded, and you instantly thought I was talking about you.


----------



## trobinett (Jan 4, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You blindly disagree with everything I say. If I said the sky was blue you would say it was gray and then tell me I was stupid.



What's your point?

It would be true........


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> NO I don't condone the US invading, raping and subjugating a soveriegn nation, nor do I condone England doing nor do I condone Israel. I think I made that pretty friggen clear numbnuts.



But you DO condone Palestine doing it, moron.  Crawl back into your hole.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

trobinett said:


> What's your point?
> 
> It would be true........



Funny.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> But you DO condone Palestine doing it, moron.  Crawl back into your hole.



I condone Palestine defending itself. You seem to be a big proponent of self-defense, why then do you not side with the Palestinians when Israel is committing so many atrocities?

Israel shoots Palestinians children for Christ's sake and you expect them to not attack back?


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> You blindly disagree with everything I say. If I said the sky was blue you would say it was gray and then tell me I was stupid.



Wrong.  A lame accusation that isn't going to sell here, jack.  I disagree with your uneducated stances on topics. 

YOU blindly take whatever stance is in opposition to the US.  Then you struggle, tapdance, attempt to deflect, and basically run all over the place trying to hold untenable positions.

Don't try to blame ME for the fact you are a dumbass, dumbass.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I condone Palestine defending itself. You seem to be a big proponent of self-defense, why then do you not side with the Palestinians when Israel is committing so many atrocities?
> 
> Israel shoots Palestinians children for Christ's sake and you expect them to not attack back?



Palestine would have no need to defend itself if it was not in fact the aggressor, using terrorist attacks and firing rockets into Israel.

Do explain how blowing oneself up in a marketplace crowded with noncombatants is "self-defense," junior.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Palestine would have no need to defend itself if it was not in fact the aggressor, using terrorist attacks and firing rockets into Israel.
> 
> Do explain how blowing oneself up in a marketplace crowded with noncombatants is "self-defense," junior.



That is an act of extremism, which I do not condone. In fact, I abhorr violence. But then again, my home was not taken over by a hostile force and my family & neighbors attacked on a daily basis by armed militias.

The plight of the Palestinians is bleak. Many have turned to extremist and radical Islamists. Palestine used to have a very good school system. America made sure to invest heavily into the Madrass because we wanted fanatics to wage war against the Soviets in the 1980's.

All schools in Palestine now teach the Koran and only the Koran. Without proper education, you expect poor Palestinians to know a better way to combat Israel? Many have turned to radical Islam and that is a shame. That is also our doing. We support the ISSI who fund radical Islamists.

Meanwhile, Israel attacks civilians (which you seem to condone) and the people get no support from their government or the US. So many turn to radical Islam and they are taught to strap a bomb to their chest.

I don't condone radical fundamentalism, but if you want to eliminate it education and good social programs are the only way.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Wrong.  A lame accusation that isn't going to sell here, jack.  I disagree with your uneducated stances on topics.
> 
> YOU blindly take whatever stance is in opposition to the US.  Then you struggle, tapdance, attempt to deflect, and basically run all over the place trying to hold untenable positions.
> 
> Don't try to blame ME for the fact you are a dumbass, dumbass.



I don't take whatever stance is anti-US.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> That is an act of extremism, which I do not condone. In fact, I abhorr violence. But then again, my home was not taken over by a hostile force and my family & neighbors attacked on a daily basis by armed militias.
> 
> The plight of the Palestinians is bleak. Many have turned to extremist and radical Islamists. Palestine used to have a very good school system. America made sure to invest heavily into the Madrass because we wanted fanatics to wage war against the Soviets in the 1980's.
> 
> ...



I don't expect Palestine to combat Israel.  I expect them to coexist.  

Since the Palestinians responsible for education are the same ones who refuse to stop fighting, any lack of education would be on their part.

Either way, you are making excuses for murder, and you attempt to present the aggressor as "victim."


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> That is an act of extremism, which I do not condone. In fact, I abhorr violence. But then again, my home was not taken over by a hostile force and my family & neighbors attacked on a daily basis by armed militias.
> 
> The plight of the Palestinians is bleak. Many have turned to extremist and radical Islamists. Palestine used to have a very good school system. America made sure to invest heavily into the Madrass because we wanted fanatics to wage war against the Soviets in the 1980's.
> 
> ...




I was so enjoying your posts til now. I'm sorry to see that you're yet another one who has no understanding of the history of the region and repeats pro-terrorist propaganda without thinking about it.

Fact: Palestine was under British rule (rightfully or wrongfully). 

Fact: Jews lived there historically as well as arabs. 

Fact: Rightfully or wrongfully, the mandate was divided by the international community who were victorious after WWII. They had every right to do this and it was no different than them creating the UAE or Iraq which didn't exist prior to WWII either.

Fact: Jews never asked the Arabs to leave their homes. Nor did they create a situation that would have caused them to leave their homes. They'd have shared the mandate. Leaving and starting war was the choice of the Arab League.

Fact: The Arabs lost... and with that, lost land. Happens in battle. They made the wrong chess move.

Fact: Israel doesn't go about attackin innocent people as a matter of policy. they have been heavy-handed at times (particulaly under the earlier part of Sharon's leadership) but weren't targeting innocents... unlike the Palestinians who like belly-bombs and have created a situation where they can't be treated like others who want to roam freely about Israel. 

I also don't see anything criticizing the pals for the kadusha rockets sent into Israel.

Do you think the U.S. would allow any rabid terrorist group to lob missiles into Detroit? Or would the U.S. government retaliate?

You don't seem like a bad person. You seem like someone who would like to see a peaceful world. So would I. But there needs to be some understanding of the reality of the circumstance and the history.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I don't expect Palestine to combat Israel.  I expect them to coexist.
> 
> Since the Palestinians responsible for education are the same ones who refuse to stop fighting, any lack of education would be on their part.
> 
> Either way, you are making excuses for murder, and you attempt to present the aggressor as "victim."



Wrong Gunny, the aggressor is Israel. And that is a fact that YOU refuse to accept because Israel is our ally and America would NEVER side with an aggressor or a respressive regime


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Wrong Gunny, the aggressor is Israel. And that is a fact that YOU refuse to accept because Israel is our ally and America would NEVER side with an aggressor or a respressive regime



Or maybe you're just wrong and don't know what you're talking about on this one?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> I was so enjoying your posts til now. I'm sorry to see that you're yet another one who has no understanding of the history of the region and repeats pro-terrorist propaganda without thinking about it.
> 
> Fact: Palestine was under British rule (rightfully or wrongfully).
> 
> ...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010301057.html?nav=rss_world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2187261,00.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102607P.shtml

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILH022wjcZI[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA&feature=related[/ame]

And for the record, people are people. I think that Palestinians and Israelis can coexist peacefully, if not for military and state machinations on both sides.


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010301057.html?nav=rss_world
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2187261,00.html
> 
> ...




I'm afraid you haven't yet refuted any of the salient points regarding the history of the region. Nor do I think I said that Israel has been perfect and has never been heavy-handed.

And just how many articles do you think I could post about attacks on innocent Israelis? Do you think they'd trump your articles? I do. Also, as a matter of policy, the palestinians still maintain the destruction of Israel as one of their goals. Not very conducive to peaceful co-existence. The Israeli's have no such goal with respect to the palestinians, stated or implicit.

That said, they *can* co-exist peacefully. In two sovereign states that leaves Israel with defenisible borders. It can't be settled with the Israeli's living in yet another arab country. 

I haven't seen a lot of desire on the part of the palestinians for two sovereign states that respects Israel's right to protect itself? Have you?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> I'm afraid you haven't yet refuted any of the salient points regarding the history of the region. Nor do I think I said that Israel has been perfect and has never been heavy-handed.
> 
> And just how many articles do you think I could post about attacks on innocent Israelis? Do you think they'd trump your articles? I do. Also, as a matter of policy, the palestinians still maintain the destruction of Israel as one of their goals. Not very conducive to peaceful co-existence. The Israeli's have no such goal with respect to the palestinians, stated or implicit.
> 
> ...


And the main problem is water. Israel wants the regions that have water and leave none for Palestine. Whereas, Palestine has always gotten the short end of the stick and they probably want the same, all for them and none for the Jews.

Perhaps if our state planners where more concerned about peace and less concerned about control, we would be able to bring peace and educate both sides to it.


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> And the main problem is water. Israel wants the regions that have water and leave none for Palestine. Whereas, Palestine has always gotten the short end of the stick and they probably want the same, all for them and none for the Jews.
> 
> Perhaps if our state planners where more concerned about peace and less concerned about control, we would be able to bring peace and educate both sides to it.



Actually, you're incorrect again. Riparian rights aren't the sticking point, well, unless you actually listen to the palestinian position that says it's Israel that has no entitlement to water.

Try again.

If the pals have "the short end of the stick" it is because the arabs lost the wars. They attacked Israel repeatedly and each time lost land. oops... so, tell me how fair you are. What other countries that won land in defensive battle are you saying should give it back? What aggressors who lost should get a do-over.... other than the pals, of course?

Finally, you know, when you leave your home because stuff wasn't what you wanted it to be, you don't get to go back. They don't get to go back to whatever the bedoins had in Israel over 60 years ago, same as I don't get back my ancestral property in Belarus. You can dislike it. It can go against your grain. But it's life.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> Actually, you're incorrect again. Riparian rights aren't the sticking point, well, unless you actually listen to the palestinian position that says it's Israel that has no entitlement to water.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> If the pals have "the short end of the stick" it is because the arabs lost the wars. They attacked Israel repeatedly and each time lost land. oops... so, tell me how fair you are. What other countries that won land in defensive battle are you saying should give it back? What aggressors who lost should get a do-over.... other than the pals, of course?


America should annex land to the Native American Indians; not desert land, good land. 

Winning the war does not give Israel impunity to treat civilian Palestinians as they please. They are people after all.


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> America should annex land to the Native American Indians; not desert land, good land.
> 
> Winning the war does not give Israel impunity to treat civilian Palestinians as they please. They are people after all.



Gee... yet another genius with an untenable solution that screws the legitimate state of Israel.

One doesn't move sovereign countries... i'm sure if Iraq were "annexed", you'd be all over yourself with objections.

So, mr. spirituality, I guess the zen doesn't extend to Israel... good on.

Actually it does. And if they want to be, they should stop strapping on bombs and killing innocent people. Just how it is. It is not the job of Israel to make the life of non-citizens warm and fuzzy. Let them work out a peace deal, and their lives can be warm and fuzzy. But they don't want that.

Now, do try to respond to any of the points I raised.... 

good luck, we'll root for you.

And as a final note, I do so look forward to you complaining that the Belarusian government displaced my family by engaging in a pattern of state-sanctioned pogroms designed to run them out. I want that money and property back. I think I'll stamp my feet til I get it. I can use it to pay for my son's college in 7 years. So let me know how it goes.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> Gee... yet another genius with an untenable solution that screws the legitimate state of Israel.
> 
> One doesn't move sovereign countries... i'm sure if Iraq were "annexed", you'd be all over yourself with objections.
> 
> ...



Violence does not justify violent retaliation


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Violence does not justify violent retaliation



When one is murdering your citizens doing nothing is criminal.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Violence does not justify violent retaliation



That's fine for you personally. Why are you trying to impose it on nations? I mean if you are fine with me hitting you over the head and robbing you, so be it. Others have the right to defend themselves. 

It would be great if there weren't nasty folks around, but there are.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> That's fine for you personally. Why are you trying to impose it on nations? I mean if you are fine with me hitting you over the head and robbing you, so be it. Others have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> It would be great if there weren't nasty folks around, but there are.



So do you condone Israel attack Palestinian civilains or Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians?

It is a viscious cycle. One that will not stop until we resolve the underlying issues and water is one of them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So do you condone Israel attack Palestinian civilains or Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians?
> 
> It is a viscious cycle. One that will not stop until we resolve the underlying issues and water is one of them.



Israel does not target civilians.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So do you condone Israel attack Palestinian civilains or Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians?
> 
> It is a viscious cycle. One that will not stop until we resolve the underlying issues and water is one of them.



Jillian already addressed water, I'm not going to go research anything today. If the Palestinians really wished a two state solution, they would stop the attacks. If Israel kept it up, obviously the world would be outraged. 

Israel is not wanted in the ME, if they do not defend themselves from attack, they will cease to exist. If Israel went on the offensive, not just reacting, the sanctions would be immediate and severe.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Israel does not target civilians.



Yes it does, and I posted some vids to backup my contention.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Jillian already addressed water, I'm not going to go research anything today. If the Palestinians really wished a two state solution, they would stop the attacks. If Israel kept it up, obviously the world would be outraged.
> 
> Israel is not wanted in the ME, if they do not defend themselves from attack, they will cease to exist. If Israel went on the offensive, not just reacting, the sanctions would be immediate and severe.



But Israel already broke a number of cease fires. The world is outraged, America is not...and therein lies the problem and the solution.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Yes it does, and I posted some vids to backup my contention.



Reacting to attacks and civilians being hit, is not targeting. Shocking though it may strike you, the bad guys know the aversion to civilian casualties and hide amongst them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> But Israel already broke a number of ceasefires.



No they did not. Israel reacts to attacks. Every Ceasefire has been broken by either Hezbullah or Hamas launching attacks after the ceasefire and claiming they didn't violate the ceasefire because they were in retaliation for something BEFORE the ceasefire.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> But Israel already broke a number of cease fires. The world is outraged, America is not...and therein lies the problem and the solution.



When you are hit, the cease fire ends. Do not forget how long the Israelis held off on reacting during the second Intifada, lots of good that did. They also held reacting during first Gulf War, to avoid escalating the crisis.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No they did not. Israel reacts to attacks. Every Ceasefire has been broken by either Hezbullah or Hamas launching attacks after the ceasefire and claiming they didn't violate the ceasefire because they were in retaliation for something BEFORE the ceasefire.


Based on what evidence?

Israel violated cease fire agreements, most recently with Lebanon which dragged out that conflict and even you cannot disagree with that.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> When you are hit, the cease fire ends. Do not forget how long the Israelis held off on reacting during the second Intifada, lots of good that did. They also held reacting during first Gulf War, to avoid escalating the crisis.



Even though Israel provoked as much as possible; fly bys, armed infantry stationed in civilain locations, and so on.


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 5, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> Matt:
> 
> There's no point in even asking him that.  His entire argument is based on a mistake.  The UN authorized the first gulf war.  I don't know why Taomon thinks they didn't.  Probably the same reason he thought BP owned 50% of KPC at the time.



Earlier on, Taomon was telling people to either google the things he was saying to see if they were true, or to provide evidence to back up their own points.  I notice now that he has started peppering his posts with links, some worth reading, others worth nothing.

However, having scanned through all the posts since your quote above, I've not been able to find any response from him to you about what I thought were 2 very good points you made.  Have I just missed his response, or has he just ignored your input?

I'd love to see him actually justify the point he implied earlier (about Mrs Thatcher insisting on Gulf War 1 due to the need to protect BP's interests).


----------



## doniston (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Palestine would have no need to defend itself if it was not in fact the aggressor, using terrorist attacks and firing rockets into Israel.
> 
> Do explain how blowing oneself up in a marketplace crowded with noncombatants is "self-defense," junior.


Your first statement is absolute nonsense, and you know it.  as for the second.  Granted that is not self defense, but it is striking back at overwheming odds.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Even though Israel provoked as much as possible; fly bys, armed infantry stationed in civilain locations, and so on.



My flipping you off would not justify violence, right?


----------



## doniston (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> I was so enjoying your posts til now. I'm sorry to see that you're yet another one who has no understanding of the history of the region and repeats pro-terrorist propaganda without thinking about it.
> 
> Fact: Palestine was under British rule (rightfully or wrongfully).
> 
> ...


  While you do make "*"SOME"* good points  I have said before, your memory and understanding of the facts needs major adjustments.


----------



## doniston (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No they did not. Israel reacts to attacks. Every Ceasefire has been broken by either Hezbullah or Hamas launching attacks after the ceasefire and claiming they didn't violate the ceasefire because they were in retaliation for something BEFORE the ceasefire.


  Simply *"BS"*


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

doniston said:


> Simply *"BS"*



Do you consider it a violation of cease fire for Israel to go get rid of kadushas?


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

doniston said:


> While you do make "*"SOME"* good points  I have said before, your memory and understanding of the facts needs major adjustments.



Actually, I'm dead on right. I'd sugget it's *your* knowledge of the facts that needs the major adjustment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> Actually, I'm dead on right. I'd sugget it's *your* knowledge of the facts that needs the major adjustment.



Lets wait for these claims to be proven. Get the people claiming Israel violated a ceasefire without it having been broken by the other side first to post their evidence. We can then use the supposed evidence to show that each supposed violation was in fact a response to a direct attack in violation of the said ceasefire.

Of course wanna bet no one provides any such evidence, other then " we all know it where I live"?


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> What do you call the West Bank and the Gaza strip? These vets are brainwashed. They believe anything the Commander in Chief tells them because that is what the military conditioned them to do.Smarten up dude.


The one who needs to smarten up is you.  The West Bank and Gaza are nowhere near Pakistan, you idiot.  Pull out a map and find Pakistan.  It's near India.  You want to tell us about the Middle East and you don't even know the basic geography of the place. How pathetic. You don't even know the difference between Pakistan and Palestinian.


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Wrong, we are not a rogue state. The UN is supposed to give authorization for military actions. Any country that acts unilaterly is a rogue state.
> 
> We invaded Panama, Saddam invaded Kuwait. What is the difference between the two? Well for one, we are citizens of America so we consider our own acts of terrorism to be justified because we are somehow the better person (collectively).
> 
> ...



Have you ever read anything? Ever seen a map? Pakistan? Seriously... what a joke. Pakistan? lol.. it's not in the middle east. As for the Gaza, Israel unilaterally left, so what did they do? Took it as a sign of weakness and use it to fire kadushas into Israel. You have aproblem with Israel's objection to that? The only thing I have to say is "too bad". Seriously. No one has to take terrorist attacks from anyone without response. And if you think Israel, which exists to keep Jews from getting killed again is going to allow itself to be attacked, you're kinda goofy.

Invaded Lebanon? You mean responded to Hezbollah rocket attacks staged from the Lebanese border and aiming for Haifa?

When you discuss the life and death issues pertaining to a country, as you purport to do with regard to Israel, a) you should know where it is; b) you should actually read something about it.

Absent those two things, perhaps not commenting is the better course of action.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

jeez, you guys are a tough audience for those that mean to 'heal the rifts' in the ME.


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> The one who needs to smarten up is you.  The West Bank and Gaza are nowhere near Pakistan, you idiot.  Pull out a map and find Pakistan.  It's near India.  You want to tell us about the Middle East and you don't even know the basic geography of the place. How pathetic. You don't even know the difference between Pakistan and Palestinian.



Well maybe this will help him.

http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/middleeast.html

Israel is the teeny little country to the west of Jordan and south of Lebanon. You might need a magnifying glass to find it.

Pakistan is all the way over to the east of Iran and southeast of Afghanistan... a couple of countries south of Uzbekistan...


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> Well maybe this will help him.
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/middleeast.html
> 
> ...




LOL


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL


----------



## DeadCanDance (Jan 5, 2008)

Jillian, Israel invading pakistan, is almost as preposterous (and hilarious)  as the wingnut myth of muslim extremists invading and conquering america.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 5, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I am a New Zealander, so the book was not required reading at any level here although I am aware of The Prince and who Machiavelli was. And? Is that book the bible of how politics should be in the world?


Kind'a. He was an Italian who laid down some basic political theories on how a Prince should govern his region. One of the questions he asks is should a Prince be loved for feared. Love, he says, is fickle. The people may love you today and hate you tomorrow.  It is better if a Prince is feared...because if he is feared, then he is respected.  People are less likely to try and kill the Prince if they fear him. It is not a big book--about hundred pages.  

As an American, I don't give a shit if the rest of the world loves me or not, but I do want them to think twice about attacking us. I want them to fear us like the non-Romans feared Rome. In Ancient Rome, if a Roman was passing through a village and he was attacked and killed, the Legions would come and lay waste to the land and kill everyone in the village. Brutal--you bet. Effective--oh, yea--but part of the reason why you had the Pax Romana.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Kind'a. He was an Italian who laid down some basic political theories on how a Prince should govern his region. One of the questions he asks is should a Prince be loved for feared. Love, he says, is fickle. The people may love you today and hate you tomorrow.  It is better if a Prince is feared...because if he is feared, then he is respected.  People are less likely to try and kill the Prince if they fear him. It is not a big book--about hundred pages.
> 
> As an American, I don't give a shit if the rest of the world loves me or not, but I do want them to think twice about attacking us. I want them to fear us like the non-Romans feared Rome. In Ancient Rome, if a Roman was passing through a village and he was attacked and killed, the Legions would come and lay waste to the land and kill everyone in the village. Brutal--you bet. Effective--oh, yea--but part of the reason why you had the Pax Romana.





> As an American, I don't give a shit if the rest of the world loves me or not, but I do want them to think twice about attacking us.


Yep, bottom line, most of us consider ourselves on the level of the prince. We have no desire to be killed or knock ourselves off. Get the pros and cons of stick and carrot.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> When one is murdering your citizens doing nothing is criminal.



So you condone the Palestinian retaliations?


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> My flipping you off would not justify violence, right?



No. Maybe a verbal retort or a laugh, but not violence.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Jillian, Israel invading pakistan, is almost as preposterous (and hilarious)  as the wingnut myth of muslim extremists invading and conquering america.



Must be a LEFT wingnut myth.  Or actually, could it be just another of your concocted accusations with no real basis in fact?

If I was betting man, my money'd go on the latter.


----------



## doniston (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> Do you consider it a violation of cease fire for Israel to go get rid of kadushas?


  What in hell does that have to do with my comment????


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Wrong Gunny, the aggressor is Israel. And that is a fact that YOU refuse to accept because Israel is our ally and America would NEVER side with an aggressor or a respressive regime




Right.  Israel is the aggressor because Palestinians fire rockets into Israel and idiots Palestinians blow themselves up in Israeli population centers.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Right.  Israel is the aggressor because Palestinians fire rockets into Israel and idiots Palestinians blow themselves up in Israeli population centers.
> 
> Makes sense to me.



No, Israel sends in troops who murder unarmed civilians. Israel sends in tanks, troops and jets to civilian areas. Yeah, they are so innocent. *NOT!*


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Violence does not justify violent retaliation



You seem to think it justifies Palestinian violence.  So what you mean is, Israel is not justified in responding to unprovoked attacks by Palestinians because you choose to side with Palestine.

Hypocrite.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No. Maybe a verbal retort or a laugh, but not violence.


I dare you to flip off the head of a mafia family, either here or in Sicily. I double dare you.


----------



## doniston (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Right.  Israel is the aggressor because Palestinians fire rockets into Israel and idiots Palestinians blow themselves up in Israeli population centers.
> 
> Makes sense to me.


  Israel *"IS"*the agressor, but Patasine's reactions are retaliations (or response)


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No, Israel sends in troops who murder unarmed civilians. Israel sends in tanks, troops and jets to civilian areas. Yeah, they are so innocent. *NOT!*



Wrong.  Israel retaliates against Palestinian attacks and they target the attackers.  

The difference being that Palestinian noncombatants killed are by accident.  Israeli noncombatants are murdered by design.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

doniston said:


> Israel *"IS"*the agressor, but Patasine's reactions are retaliations (or response)



Israel is not waging a war of genocide against Palestine.  Israel responds to Palestinian terrorist attacks.  Buy a newspaper.


----------



## jillian (Jan 5, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Right.  Israel is the aggressor because Palestinians fire rockets into Israel and idiots Palestinians blow themselves up in Israeli population centers.
> 
> Makes sense to me.



I know you realize that they think it's Israel's *presence* that's the aggressive act.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

Just because the Palis have been unsuccessful thus far in killing and maiming, doesn't mean that Israel needs to turn off their scopes in reacting. Just saying.


----------



## trobinett (Jan 5, 2008)

Simply an amazing thread.

I have never seen so many people, so set on removing a countries ability to defend itself.


The history, the difference in religion, the difference in political affiliation, has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Though I certainly understand there are those that wish to make it so.

It's basic to humanity to defend itself, and therefore, follow along closely kids, it's basic for a nation to defend itself.

Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## Annie (Jan 5, 2008)

trobinett said:


> Simply an amazing thread.
> 
> I have never seen so many people, so set on removing a countries ability to defend itself.
> 
> ...



They reflect the UN perfectly. US and Israel have thresholds that are beyond others when it comes to provocation or reaction. When those thresholds are reached, the bar is raised. There really are no limits.


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2008)

i think Israel has the ability to defend its self...unlike palastine....or Iran


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2008)

Nuclear Issues - CDIThe secrecy with which Israel shrouds its nuclear arsenal renders estimates of its size highly unreliable. Generally, however, it is estimated that Israel ...
www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm - 66k  


http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm


----------



## tigerbob (Jan 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Kind'a. He was an Italian who laid down some basic political theories on how a Prince should govern his region. One of the questions he asks is should a Prince be loved for feared. Love, he says, is fickle. The people may love you today and hate you tomorrow.  It is better if a Prince is feared...because if he is feared, then he is respected.  People are less likely to try and kill the Prince if they fear him. It is not a big book--about hundred pages.
> 
> As an American, I don't give a shit if the rest of the world loves me or not, but I do want them to think twice about attacking us. I want them to fear us like the non-Romans feared Rome. In Ancient Rome, if a Roman was passing through a village and he was attacked and killed, the Legions would come and lay waste to the land and kill everyone in the village. Brutal--you bet. Effective--oh, yea--but part of the reason why you had the Pax Romana.



That's quite interesting.  I get the sense that you largely buy what Machiavelli was saying (though I may be wrong) - that you can get respect through making people fear you.

You go on to say you don't care whether the rest of the world loves America.  But you do want the rest of the world to fear America, so I'm guessing that you want the world to respect America, in which case you do care what the rest of the world thinks.

I'm not so sure that respect is a natural result of fear.  That's the doctrine that the bully in the schoolyard lives by, or the 14 year old wannabe gang-banger.  Resentment and loathing are usually the result of fear.  That was certainly the result of the means used to enforce the Pax Romana - maintaining the appearance of peace by keeping your foot on the throat of those who would oppose you.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Kind'a. He was an Italian who laid down some basic political theories on how a Prince should govern his region. One of the questions he asks is should a Prince be loved for feared. Love, he says, is fickle. The people may love you today and hate you tomorrow.  It is better if a Prince is feared...because if he is feared, then he is respected.  People are less likely to try and kill the Prince if they fear him. It is not a big book--about hundred pages.
> 
> As an American, I don't give a shit if the rest of the world loves me or not, but I do want them to think twice about attacking us. I want them to fear us like the non-Romans feared Rome. In Ancient Rome, if a Roman was passing through a village and he was attacked and killed, the Legions would come and lay waste to the land and kill everyone in the village. Brutal--you bet. Effective--oh, yea--but part of the reason why you had the Pax Romana.



But what if you are neither respected or feared like the hijackers of 9-11? And what happened to the Roman Empire in the end?

As for those thinking twice about attacking you, do you think any terrorist who truly wants to do you harm is scared of you? From the outside looking in, it seems you have attacked people that mean you no harm, and a lot of neocons are quite happy to buy into that. Sad really...


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 5, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> But what if you are neither respected or feared like the hijackers of 9-11?


As the Al-Qaeda hold outs in Afghantisan found out--a laser guider 500 pound JDAM has a unique way of changing minds. 

As far as how the Roman Empire ended, I'd remind you to look instead at how the Japanese Empire came to an end. They had nothing but contempt for the United States, but we kill'em by the hundreds of thousands; we sank their aircraft carries; we buried them alive; we burned their cities; we roasted them in atomic fire. I think if it had not been for the America's First Marine Division, many here would be speaking Japanese right now.


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> As the Al-Qaeda hold outs in Afghantisan found out--a laser guider 500 pound JDAM has a unique way of changing minds.
> 
> As far as how the Roman Empire ended, I'd remind you to look instead at how the Japanese Empire came to an end. They had nothing but contempt for the United States, but we kill'em by the hundreds of thousands; we sank their aircraft carries; we buried them alive; we burned their cities; we roasted them in atomic fire. I think if it had not been for the America's First Marine Division, many here would be speaking Japanese right now.



you under estimate your enemy


----------



## Gunny (Jan 5, 2008)

jillian said:


> I know you realize that they think it's Israel's *presence* that's the aggressive act.



Oh I realize it.  I think it's a stupid argument.  Israel has managed to come to terms with Egypt and Jordan and from the day those peace agreements were signed to this, Israel has used no military force against either.  An OBVIOUS precedent commpletely  ignored by the anti-Israel/pro-Palestine crowd.

If Palestinians would spend as much time building a nation and an infrastructure as they do being dimwitted, murderous terrorists, Palestine would probably be the jewel of the Middle East.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 5, 2008)

eots said:


> you under estimate your enemy


No...no, I don't.


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2008)

You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> As the Al-Qaeda hold outs in Afghantisan found out--a laser guider 500 pound JDAM has a unique way of changing minds.
> 
> As far as how the Roman Empire ended, I'd remind you to look instead at how the Japanese Empire came to an end. They had nothing but contempt for the United States, but we kill'em by the hundreds of thousands; we sank their aircraft carries; we buried them alive; we burned their cities; we roasted them in atomic fire. I think if it had not been for the America's First Marine Division, many here would be speaking Japanese right now.




AQ and the other like-minded groups are like a Hydra - cut of its head and two more appear..

Doesn't matter how either Empire ended. They both ended...with a lot of unnecessary bloodshed in between.

And bollocks re the marines. They did more than their fair share, but so did others.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> AQ and the other like-minded groups are like a Hydra - cut of its head and two more appear..
> 
> Doesn't matter how either Empire ended. They both ended...with a lot of unnecessary bloodshed in between.
> 
> And bollocks re the marines. They did more than their fair share, but so did others.



Yes, lets just let them kill us and do nothing, retreat behind our borders and allow them to do what ever they demand, NOW THAT will fix everything.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> AQ and the other like-minded groups are like a Hydra - cut of its head and two more appear...


That's when you use a automatic shotgun. If you'll recall UBL--shakin' in his turban--said if we chased him into Afghanistan, he'd kill us in droves. Gary Berntsen brought in a team of special operatives and they killed Al-Qaeda and their supporters much faster than anyone anticipated. So believe that Islamic extermist propaganda but the facts on the ground speak for themselves. The Taliban were crushed, Al-Qaeda ran and when they did fight--they died, and moderate Muslims are sick of AQ killing them by the hundreds, killing children, and digging up dead opponents and cutting off their heads and putting it on their car hoods.

Even the earth will end some day...so what.  I'm supposed to live a defeatist life because of it.  I don't think so.  There will always be wars and rumors of wars--just think about this, if the United States goes down, what will replace it.  If the Islamic extremists have their way, it will be a world wide Caliphate. Are you cool with that?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes, lets just let them kill us and do nothing, retreat behind our borders and allow them to do what ever they demand, NOW THAT will fix everything.



I'm not saying that. By all means go after them, just make sure you get the right people...and go after the right people. That would be a nice start..


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> That's when you use a automatic shotgun. If you'll recall UBL--shakin' in his turban--said if we chased him into Afghanistan, he'd kill us in droves. Gary Berntsen brought in a team of special operatives and they killed Al-Qaeda and their supporters much faster than anyone anticipated. So believe that Islamic extermist propaganda but the facts on the ground speak for themselves. The Taliban were crushed, Al-Qaeda ran and when they did fight--they died, and moderate Muslims are sick of AQ killing them by the hundreds, killing children, and digging up dead opponents and cutting off their heads and putting it on their car hoods.
> 
> Even the earth will end some day...so what.  I'm supposed to live a defeatist life because of it.  I don't think so.  There will always be wars and rumors of wars--just think about this, if the United States goes down, what will replace it.  If the Islamic extremists have their way, it will be a world wide Caliphate. Are you cool with that?



I don't believe anybody's propaganda. And no, nobody was shaking in their boots. 

If the Taliban are crushed, how come there is a resurgence of them in Pakistan? I had to break it to you MC, but AQ were never an international, well-constructed terrorist group like the IRA. They are a mish mash of fanatics and Muslim fundies who belong to a whole slew of different groups that are hardly organised in the traditional sense.

BS re the Islamic terrorists. They are a fringe group in fringe countries. Tell me one non-Muslim country where they have a stranglehold. Other than Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, name a Muslim country where they rule? The Sky is Falling MC,  The Sky is Falling!  

The US is already being replaced, you just don't realise it yet - by China and India...


----------



## jillian (Jan 6, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Kind'a. He was an Italian who laid down some basic political theories on how a Prince should govern his region. One of the questions he asks is should a Prince be loved for feared. Love, he says, is fickle. The people may love you today and hate you tomorrow.  It is better if a Prince is feared...because if he is feared, then he is respected.  People are less likely to try and kill the Prince if they fear him. It is not a big book--about hundred pages.



Hmmmmmmmmm... funny how people respond to things. I always looked to Machiavelli as a way NOT to do things... as brutal leadership and a willingness to do whatever you felt you needed to in order to secure power, no matter what the repercussions. No where in my studies did I ever think those were positive things. In fact, if I say someone is machiavellian, I certainly am not using it as a complement.


----------



## Annie (Jan 6, 2008)

jillian said:


> Hmmmmmmmmm... funny how people respond to things. I always looked to Machiavelli as a way NOT to do things... as brutal leadership and a willingness to do whatever you felt you needed to in order to secure power, no matter what the repercussions. No where in my studies did I ever think those were positive things. In fact, if I say someone is machiavellian, I certainly am not using it as a complement.



I don't want a Machiavellian leader, but I do want a more Machiavellian state. The Prince, was written for the age of monarchy, thus the Prince and the state were one. Not so much the intrigue, but the strength. Lord knows our branches and agencies don't need more walls. BTW, I think that FDR's way of managing the players of his administration was the most Machiavellian of all.


----------



## trobinett (Jan 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Oh I realize it.  I think it's a stupid argument.  Israel has managed to come to terms with Egypt and Jordan and from the day those peace agreements were signed to this, Israel has used no military force against either.  An OBVIOUS precedent commpletely  ignored by the anti-Israel/pro-Palestine crowd.
> 
> If Palestinians would spend as much time building a nation and an infrastructure as they do being dimwitted, murderous terrorists, Palestine would probably be the jewel of the Middle East.



People, take a moment, and reread GunnyL's post. 

What's said in that post address's most, if not all of what is tearing the middle east to pieces.

Hell, we see it everyday in our lives.  I'll bet you've said more than once, "if they would only work that hard at their job, rather than avoiding doing their job, they would own the place".  I know I have.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I don't believe anybody's propaganda. And no, nobody was shaking in their boots.
> 
> If the Taliban are crushed, how come there is a resurgence of them in Pakistan? I had to break it to you MC, but AQ were never an international, well-constructed terrorist group like the IRA. They are a mish mash of fanatics and Muslim fundies who belong to a whole slew of different groups that are hardly organised in the traditional sense.
> 
> ...



I have to call foul on this one, Grump.  You know very well how and why the what's leftt of the Taliban is left unmolested in Pakistan.  Are you suggesting the US violate the sovereignty of another nation to go after them?  

I personally have no problem with it and would have run them to ground no matter where they went.  I'm just trying to imagine exactly how much eloquence you would use in continually condemning the action.

I also have to ask where you get your parameters from.  One non-Muslim country where "they" (fundies) have a stranglehold?  Why only non-Muslim countries?  

It stands to reason they are going to operate in environments most conducive to their success, and spread from there.  

How many countries PERIOD were controlled by fundies in 1970 compares to how many countries period were controlled by fundies in 2001?

How many countries NOT controlled by fundies are currently waging wars of survival against them?


----------



## Warner (Jan 6, 2008)

I have to agree with Gunny on this one.  The power of the fundamentalists has grown tremendously over the last 15 years or so, and especially since the war in Iraq began.  The situation in Pakistan is dire.  And whats going on in Africa is something we should really be much more concerned about.

The bottom line is we should not have gone into Iraq.  At least, not until we had exterminated the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In 2002-3 we had the influence to do as we wished in northern Pakistan, and the available might as well.  

We should have carpet bombed without warning sections of Kabul and other locations where we believed the Taliban and AQ leadership might be hold up.
We should then have sent perhaps as many as 80,000 or even 100,000 troops, encircled them and exterminated them, and killed Bin Ladin and his henchmen.  Then we should have undertaken a major rebuild Afghanistan project in order to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and philosophically defeat the Taliban/AQ.

And finally we should have paid for this by building a pipeline from the Arabian Sea North through Pakistan and Afghanistan to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.  This would supply huge amounts of oil which could fund not only the military operation but also buy the support of all four countries.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jan 6, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Then you know what I am talking about.




That's pretty sad if you think folks such as Gunny are terrorists.


----------



## eots (Jan 6, 2008)

Warner said:


> I have to agree with Gunny on this one.  The power of the fundamentalists has grown tremendously over the last 15 years or so, and especially since the war in Iraq began.  The situation in Pakistan is dire.  And whats going on in Africa is something we should really be much more concerned about.
> 
> The bottom line is we should not have gone into Iraq.  At least, not until we had exterminated the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In 2002-3 we had the influence to do as we wished in northern Pakistan, and the available might as well.
> 
> ...



KEEP IN MIND THER ARE MANY ARABS AND LOTS OF BOX CUTTERS


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I have to call foul on this one, Grump.  You know very well how and why the what's leftt of the Taliban is left unmolested in Pakistan.  Are you suggesting the US violate the sovereignty of another nation to go after them?



I know they are left unmolested, that is my point. You invade Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq and NOW you are concerned about sovereignty??? You do realise the areas where the Taliban are hiding out are run by the Pushtan, not the Pakistan govt. They have a long-running agreement with the Govt in Islamabad that the govt controls the roads and the tribes the different areas. Why not black ops like you guys did in the mid 80s in central America? Violating sovereignty?? ppfffffffffttttt...




GunnyL said:


> I also have to ask where you get your parameters from.  One non-Muslim country where "they" (fundies) have a stranglehold?  Why only non-Muslim countries?



Because MC's post gave the impression they were taking over the world. If Muslims are taking over Muslims, then it is up to them to sort it out. I don't see them as an overall threat to the western world. Sure there are little pockets in Holland and Britain, but they have no more sway than your own Nation of Islam. Would be similar re Christians. 



GunnyL said:


> It stands to reason they are going to operate in environments most conducive to their success, and spread from there.



Maybe, maybe not, but you have to realise outside of Syria, Iran, some of the minor Gulf states, where are their stongholds? There is very few fundies in Indonesia (the biggest Muslim country in the world). Ditto India, North America, South America, China, Vietnam, Russia, most of Africa, Japan, the Koreas - IOW, the vast majority of the rest of the world. You right-wing Yanks always need something to rally against. Up until the 1990s it was Commies, now it's Muslims. What next, folks who like driving on the left hand side of the road?




GunnyL said:


> How many countries PERIOD were controlled by fundies in 1970 compares to how many countries period were controlled by fundies in 2001?



Well, ironically, one such place is that great US ally Saudi Arabia for ever and a day. Another was Yemen. Syria is NOT fundamentalist, yet is a much bigger thorn in the side of the US with its support of terrorism. Outsida that, the only fundie countries have been Afghanistan and Iran (and even in Iran there is a huge secular movement, that although curtailed, is still there). How many Muslim countries are there? 30-40? And two are fundie, one being a strong US ally..go figure...



GunnyL said:


> How many countries NOT controlled by fundies are currently waging wars of survival against them?



True, but they are (with the exception of Thailand and Phillipines) Muslim countries. And those fundies are the minority by far. And how successful have they been?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2008)

Warner said:


> I have to agree with Gunny on this one.  The power of the fundamentalists has grown tremendously over the last 15 years or so, and especially since the war in Iraq began.  The situation in Pakistan is dire.  And whats going on in Africa is something we should really be much more concerned about.
> 
> The bottom line is we should not have gone into Iraq.  At least, not until we had exterminated the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In 2002-3 we had the influence to do as we wished in northern Pakistan, and the available might as well.
> 
> ...




Carpet bombing would have created far more terrorists than not. Islamic fundimentalism has not been on the rise in the past 15 years. It has always been there, but because it has only recently started to affect the US, you have noticed it. Most informed people outside of your border have seen this happening for much longer.

it would be impossible to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even at their most stable, outside of those countries' main cities, the land has always been a law unto themselves. You would be at the mercy of local warlords...


----------



## Gunny (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> I know they are left unmolested, that is my point. You invade Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq and NOW you are concerned about sovereignty??? You do realise the areas where the Taliban are hiding out are run by the Pushtan, not the Pakistan govt. They have a long-running agreement with the Govt in Islamabad that the govt controls the roads and the tribes the different areas. Why not black ops like you guys did in the mid 80s in central America? Violating sovereignty?? ppfffffffffttttt...



I did not say I personally care about violating the sovereignty of Pakistan in this case.  I was mostly poking fun at you, one of the US's biggest critics suggesting we just that.

And you're mixing apples-n-oranges.  Pakistan, unlike the countries you mention, is not the target of the US.  Naturally sovereignty is ignored when one invades a country.  It otherwise is not.

I personally would have no problem bombing the Taliban back into the stone age.  



> Because MC's post gave the impression they were taking over the world. If Muslims are taking over Muslims, then it is up to them to sort it out. I don't see them as an overall threat to the western world. Sure there are little pockets in Holland and Britain, but they have no more sway than your own Nation of Islam. Would be similar re Christians.





> Maybe, maybe not, but you have to realise outside of Syria, Iran, some of the minor Gulf states, where are their stongholds? There is very few fundies in Indonesia (the biggest Muslim country in the world). Ditto India, North America, South America, China, Vietnam, Russia, most of Africa, Japan, the Koreas - IOW, the vast majority of the rest of the world. You right-wing Yanks always need something to rally against. Up until the 1990s it was Commies, now it's Muslims. What next, folks who like driving on the left hand side of the road?



Kind of a skewed perception of events.  "Right wing yanks" did not start the Cold War.  

And no, it isn't "muslims."  It's militant muslim extremists who are waging a war of terror, individually or collectively all over the world.  



> Well, ironically, one such place is that great US ally Saudi Arabia for ever and a day. Another was Yemen. Syria is NOT fundamentalist, yet is a much bigger thorn in the side of the US with its support of terrorism. Outsida that, the only fundie countries have been Afghanistan and Iran (and even in Iran there is a huge secular movement, that although curtailed, is still there). How many Muslim countries are there? 30-40? And two are fundie, one being a strong US ally..go figure...



Sudan?  Palestine?



> True, but they are (with the exception of Thailand and Phillipines) Muslim countries. And those fundies are the minority by far. And how successful have they been?



I still don't consider the fact the country is Muslim or not as a factor.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I did not say I personally care about violating the sovereignty of Pakistan in this case.  I was mostly poking fun at you, one of the US's biggest critics suggesting we just that.
> 
> And you're mixing apples-n-oranges.  Pakistan, unlike the countries you mention, is not the target of the US.  Naturally sovereignty is ignored when one invades a country.  It otherwise is not.
> 
> ...



Good point re Sudan. Palestine??hmmm I'll give you that do to a degree...Still, not many in the overall scheme.

Well, right wing Yanks certainly entrenched the anti-Communist movement. McCarthy anyone?

I am a bit harsh of some aspects of your foreign policy for sure, but some of the praise gets buried. I think you guys do a lot of good with aid but are hardly praised for it..


----------



## Gunny (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Good point re Sudan. Palestine??hmmm I'll give you that do to a degree...Still, not many in the overall scheme.
> 
> Well, right wing Yanks certainly entrenched the anti-Communist movement. McCarthy anyone?
> 
> I am a bit harsh of some aspects of your foreign policy for sure, but some of the praise gets buried. I think you guys do a lot of good with aid but are hardly praised for it..



The Arabs of Palestine voted for a known international terrorist organization to represent them as their government.  That makes each and every Palestinian who voted for them complicit in their actions.  

McCarthy was a witchhunter and fearmongerer.  Communist aggression was a threat to the world post-WWII.  The fact that it collapsed on its own does not negate the millions that were murdered between 1917 and 1986.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The Arabs of Palestine voted for a known international terrorist organization to represent them as their government.  That makes each and every Palestinian who voted for them complicit in their actions.
> 
> McCarthy was a witchhunter and fearmongerer.  Communist aggression was a threat to the world post-WWII.  The fact that it collapsed on its own does not negate the millions that were murdered between 1917 and 1986.



Palestine is literally split in two at the moment - both geographically and ideologically...with hamas running one part and fatah the other. Plus I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in the electorial system. Hamas are not really fundamentalists in the same sense as the Taliban. They hate Israel, but I don't think they enforce Sharia law do they?

As for Communism, I have always felt it wasn't true communism in the Soviet Union. It's not like everybody was equal. it was more a totalitarian state...


----------



## Gunny (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Palestine is literally split in two at the moment - both geographically and ideologically...with hamas running one part and fatah the other. Plus I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in the electorial system. Hamas are not really fundamentalists in the same sense as the Taliban. They hate Israel, but I don't think they enforce Sharia law do they?
> 
> As for Communism, I have always felt it wasn't true communism in the Soviet Union. It's not like everybody was equal. it was more a totalitarian state...



I do not know whether or not Hamas is fundie.

The Soviet Union was not a by-the-book "communist" nation.  But that is what they called themselves and what a combination of totalitarianism and socialism was labelled during the Cold War.


----------



## jillian (Jan 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I do not know whether or not Hamas is fundie.
> 
> The Soviet Union was not a by-the-book "communist" nation.  But that is what they called themselves and what a combination of totalitarianism and socialism was labelled during the Cold War.



Hamas isn't fundie... they're just terrorists.

The Soviet Union also wasn't really socialist because the property was owned by the State and not privately... well, in theory anyway.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Because MC's post gave the impression they were taking over the world. If Muslims are taking over Muslims, then it is up to them to sort it out. I don't see them as an overall threat to the western world. Sure there are little pockets in Holland and Britain, but they have no more sway than your own Nation of Islam.


Three things...
1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
3. Read *Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West* by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 6, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Three things...
> 1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
> 2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
> 3. Read *Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West* by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.



Oh, I know there are fundie Muslims and what their agenda is. I'm just wondering how successful they have been. I don't even think OBL had anything to do with 9-11. he happily took the credit and those resposible were definiately fundie Muslims, but I don't think he planned it. There has been no evidence of that other than him saying so - as I said, it was him gladly taking the credit.

Why do you think 9-11 happened?


----------



## jillian (Jan 6, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Three things...
> 1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
> 2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
> 3. Read *Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West* by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.



No question we got attacked here... but I'm just wondering what you think is added to one's knowledge by a trip to Ground Zero. And so you know, I'm not being snide or anything. I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer.


----------



## Warner (Jan 6, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> Carpet bombing would have created far more terrorists than not. Islamic fundimentalism has not been on the rise in the past 15 years. It has always been there, but because it has only recently started to affect the US, you have noticed it. Most informed people outside of your border have seen this happening for much longer.



Well, I don't disagree that fundamentalism has been around for a long time.  My point is that there was a huge acceleration of the movement starting about 15 (maybe 20) years ago and this has become almost exponential since the invasion of Iraq.

As for the carpet bombing creating more terrorists than not, I disagree.  The Taliban was relatively concentrated in Kabul and a few other locations.  Given US stealth bombers these areas could have been surgically carpet bombed.  Yes there would definitely have been collateral damage, but the number of innocents killed would be less than the number lost to date, and the war would have been all but over.  The key to success in this would be quickly and effectively rebuilding Afghanistan, providing a quick and noticeable improvement in the lives of the people.



Dr Grump said:


> it would be impossible to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even at their most stable, outside of those countries' main cities, the land has always been a law unto themselves. You would be at the mercy of local warlords...



I disagree.  I'm not saying it would be easy, but such a pipeline would be feasible.  In fact, such a thing is still in the plan - the only issue is when.  It had been thought construction could begin around 2012.  But given the state of the situation, clearly that date is not going to be realized.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 6, 2008)

jillian said:


> Hmmmmmmmmm... funny how people respond to things. I always looked to Machiavelli as a way NOT to do things... as brutal leadership and a willingness to do whatever you felt you needed to in order to secure power, no matter what the repercussions. No where in my studies did I ever think those were positive things. In fact, if I say someone is machiavellian, I certainly am not using it as a complement.


We have not been brutal enough in this war in my view. Donald Rumsfled tried to run a politically correct war with limited surgical operations and that is why the military came to hate him over time. As General Sherman said, "War is hell" and trying to sanitize it, only helps the enemy. Had we bombed the passes out of the Shahikot Valley after March 2, 2002, brought in heavy artillery of the 101st and used our own troops to block access to Pakistan, there is a good chance UBL would be dead and Iraq would have been irrelevant. But no...we had to play "Mister Nice Guy" and sacrifice our own troops in the process. And many AQ elements escaped into Pakistan, although we could see the heat of their camp fires from 30,000 feet as they made their way across the mountains. Rummie was afraid we'd may accidentally kill some poor mountain goat herder--although there was no villages in the region or at that altitude--so he let them pass. SOB. That idiot...that's what happens in war. 

Wars are won by killing the enemy as in large numbers, as quickly and efficiently as possible and turning the general population away from supporting the enemy. If that means providing amnesty to Confederate leaders and generals as in the War Between the States or atomizing a population of a major city like Hiroshima, then that's what you do. Wars are fought to be won, not run like some division of a major corporation and Donald Rumsfeld was not Machiavellian enough.


----------



## Warner (Jan 6, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The Arabs of Palestine voted for a known international terrorist organization to represent them as their government.  That makes each and every Palestinian who voted for them complicit in their actions.



IMO the people of any nation are always responsible for the actions of their leadership.  If the leadership brings death and destruction upon them through its actions that is the price that must be paid for allowing such leadership.  I'm not saying this is always fair, just that it is an obvious reality.


----------



## jillian (Jan 6, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> We have not been brutal enough in this war in my view. Donald Rumsfled tried to run a politically correct war with limited surgical operations and that is why the military came to hate him over time. As General Sherman said, "War is hell" and trying to sanitize it, only helps the enemy. Had we bombed the passes out of the Shahikot Valley after March 2, 2002, brought in heavy artillery of the 101st and used our own troops to block access to Pakistan, there is a good chance UBL would be dead and Iraq would have been irrelevant. But no...we had to play "Mister Nice Guy" and sacrifice our own troops in the process. And many AQ elements escaped into Pakistan, although we could see the heat of their camp fires from 30,000 feet as they made their way across the mountains. Rummie was afraid we'd may accidentally kill some poor mountain goat herder--although there was no villages in the region or at that altitude--so he let them pass. SOB. That idiot...that's what happens in war.



I have to disagree. Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap because he was arrogant. He wanted to put the military folk in their place and didn't listen to his generals... neither did Cheney, and in turn, neither did Bush. I don't think we should have gone in. But having said that, once the decision to go in was made, it should have been done with overwhelming force. There wasn't any "mister nice guy"... there was a lack of planning for anything beyond deposing Saddam Hussein. They ignored the state department's warnings about what would happen if they went into Baghdad and planned nothing ... there was no clear objective. *That* was the failure.



> Wars are won by killing the enemy as in large numbers, as quickly and efficiently as possible and turning the general population away from supporting the enemy. If that means providing amnesty to Confederate leaders and generals as in the War Between the States or atomizing a population of a major city like Hiroshima, then that's what you do. Wars are fought to be won, not run like some division of a major corporation and Donald Rumsfeld was not Machiavellian enough.



I think Rummy was far TOO Machiavellian... he cared only for his own stature and not his troops' well-being. The problem, in part, was a clear definition of who the enemy was. We, at least theoretically, weren't at war with the Iraqi people. Prior to Saddam's fall, there was no AQ in Iraq or fundies in power... the problem with the operation was a total and complete failure to prevent sectarian violence. They should never have disbanded the Iraqi Army. I'm not a military person, but I think the position into which they placed our troops was untenable at best and brutally disgusting, at worst. They endangered our bravest out of hubris.

By the by, I'd recommend State of Denial for some interesting reading on the lead up to the war and the decision-making processes involved.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 6, 2008)

jillian said:


> I have to disagree. Rummy wanted to do the war on the cheap because he was arrogant. He wanted to put the military folk in their place and didn't listen to his generals... neither did Cheney, and in turn, neither did Bush. I don't think we should have gone in. But having said that, once the decision to go in was made, it should have been done with overwhelming force. There wasn't any "mister nice guy"... there was a lack of planning for anything beyond deposing Saddam Hussein. They ignored the state department's warnings about what would happen if they went into Baghdad and planned nothing ... there was no clear objective. *That* was the failure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He was talking about Afghanistan not Iraq.


----------



## jillian (Jan 7, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He was talking about Afghanistan not Iraq.



MC? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll look. If we're talking about Afghanistan, I think we went in there appropriately and absolutely didn't use enough firepower to do the job... but that's because they diverted our resources to Iraq.

I've always said the Taliban should have been mashed in Iraq instead of us getting side-tracked by a war of choice.


----------



## jillian (Jan 7, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I don't want a Machiavellian leader, but I do want a more Machiavellian state. The Prince, was written for the age of monarchy, thus the Prince and the state were one. Not so much the intrigue, but the strength. Lord knows our branches and agencies don't need more walls. BTW, I think that FDR's way of managing the players of his administration was the most Machiavellian of all.



Sorry for the delay in responding. Didn't see this til just now.  

I'm not sure what the difference is between a Machiavellian leader and a Machiavellian State. 

You might think so regarding FDR. But, to me, the things he did weren't Machiavellian at all because he did what he thought was right for his people. It wasn't about solidifying his power (though I'm sure it did that too). I think Bush is far more Machiavellian (well, Cheney really, since I'm pretty sure that the whole presidential power grab comes from his advice given he never got over Nixon being taken down) than FDR ever dreamed of being. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Annie (Jan 7, 2008)

jillian said:


> Sorry for the delay in responding. Didn't see this til just now.
> 
> I'm not sure what the difference is between a Machiavellian leader and a Machiavellian State.
> 
> You might think so regarding FDR. But, to me, the things he did weren't Machiavellian at all because he did what he thought was right for his people. It wasn't about solidifying his power (though I'm sure it did that too). I think Bush is far more Machiavellian (well, Cheney really, since I'm pretty sure that the whole presidential power grab comes from his advice given he never got over Nixon being taken down) than FDR ever dreamed of being. Just my opinion of course.



Well I don't have time right now to discuss, just having cuppa then to school. (sigh, I love Christmas break), but later.


----------



## jillian (Jan 7, 2008)

Yep...same here. Have a great day, Kathianne. lol re christmas break!


----------



## onedomino (Jan 7, 2008)

jillian said:


> MC? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll look. If we're talking about Afghanistan, I think we went in there appropriately and absolutely didn't use enough firepower to do the job... but that's because they diverted our resources to Iraq.
> 
> I've always said the Taliban should have been mashed in Iraq instead of us getting side-tracked by a war of choice.


The Afghan invasion and the inability to quickly find Bin Laden occurred in late 2001. The Battle of Tora Bora, where Bin Laden was thought to escape into Pakistan, was in December 2001. The Iraq war did not start until March 2003. Our failure in Afghanistan, and northwest Pakistan, to completely eradicate the Taliban and kill OBL had nothing to do with diversion of resources to Iraq. In hindsight, we did not use enough ground forces for the Afghan work, but you will recall at the time everyone said the CIA had done brilliant work ousting the Taliban without risking lots of US lives and using instead the forces of the Northern Alliance. Also, we had a clear memory of how insurgents had defeated 100,000 Soviet troops and we did not want to replicate that experience.


----------



## jillian (Jan 7, 2008)

onedomino said:


> The Afghan invasion and the inability to quickly find Bin Laden occurred in late 2001. The Battle of Tora Bora, where Bin Laden was thought to escape into Pakistan, was in December 2001. The Iraq war did not start until March 2003. Our failure in Afghanistan, and northwest Pakistan, to completely eradicate the Taliban and kill OBL had nothing to do with diversion of resources to Iraq. In hindsight, we did not use enough ground forces for the Afghan work, but you will recall at the time everyone said the CIA had done brilliant work ousting the Taliban without risking lots of US lives and using instead the forces of the Northern Alliance. Also, we had a clear memory of how insurgents had defeated 100,000 Soviet troops and we did not want to replicate that experience.



Actually that's incorrect. They started diverting funds from Afghanistan and allocated them for Iraq well in advance of the actual invasion.

I never said they were done in Afghanistan. I always said they needed to finish the job there.


----------



## eots (Jan 7, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Three things...
> 1. Read UBL's own words--there are several good books on the subject.
> 2. Visit Ground Zero in New York. [oh, by the way--on 9/11 I knew exactly who was doing it as it happened]
> 3. Read *Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West* by Walid Phares, published by Palgrave Macmillian, copyright 2005.



read pnac ! Americas terrorist strategy handbook


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 7, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> He was talking about Afghanistan not Iraq.


Ummmm,
GySgt is correct. The Shahikot Valley is in Afghanistan.  I put in little tidbits like that to see if folks have a clue.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 8, 2008)

eots said:


> read pnac ! Americas terrorist strategy handbook


typical reply--anything that does not aline with your anti-Americanism you immediately discount and never deal with the thesis.


----------



## eots (Jan 8, 2008)

preplanned preemptive wars against perceived possible future threats  sold with misleading  intelligence is anti-American...buddy


----------



## Warner (Jan 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> Actually that's incorrect. They started diverting funds from Afghanistan and allocated them for Iraq well in advance of the actual invasion.
> 
> I never said they were done in Afghanistan. I always said they needed to finish the job there.



I fear it is now too late.  The Afghan's have now aligned themselves.  For the most part, except in small areas, they would prefer a return to Taliban rule.  They see UN/American forces as non-Arab/Islamic occupiers.

Furthermore, the lack of troops has lead to far to much use of air strikes and artillery attacks seeking to kill a handful of enemy in a town or village.  More often than not (in fact, almost always) this fails to kill the targets but causes significant civilian losses.  This is the surest way to generate future terrorists.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 8, 2008)

onedomino said:


> ...but you will recall at the time everyone said the CIA had done brilliant work ousting the Taliban without risking lots of US lives and using instead the forces of the Northern Alliance. Also, we had a clear memory of how insurgents had defeated 100,000 Soviet troops and we did not want to replicate that experience.


Ummmm,
No, not everyone has claiming that the CIA job was done.  In fact, Gary Bernsten, the man who lead the operation against the Taliban and AQ, was convinced that we were pulling out too early and had not finished the job. To say he was super pissed is putting it mildly. In fact he was so pissed, that he retired, shortly after returning to the states, and wrote a book about it. 

Secondly, no the insurgents did not defeat the Soviets. The Soviets had basically steamrolled over Afghanistan until the United States began providing arms and supplies via Pakistan.  But the real turn around came when we gave them Stinger Missiles that allowed them to shoot down the Soviet Hind helicopter.  Yes, the insurgents pulled the trigger, but it was our money, logistics network--Israel to Egypt to Pakistan to Afghanistan--and our Stringer missiles that made it happen. There is no replicating the Soviet experience without replicating American involvement.  See *Charlie Wlison's War*.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 9, 2008)

eots said:


> preplanned preemptive wars against perceived possible future threats  sold with misleading  intelligence is anti-American...buddy


Good Grief,
So many misconceptions in one sentence: 
1.) All wars are preplanned--have you not heard of Schlieffen Plan.  The Department of Defense conducts war games all the time involving different scenarios and enemies. The results are written up in a book and shelved. The problem with the Iraq war is there are those who feel the policy of "Containment" was working and there is evidence to support such a view--but it is not conclusive. Be that as it may, the complete plan for war with Iraq was not followed--little thought was given to what happens after Saddam was removed. Furthermore, the army had not trained to deal with counter-insurgency since Vietnam. Nearly all the lessons from that period were forgotten.  The only units that continued to train on counterinsurgency were the Special Forces and Marines: God Bless'em.

2) Radical Islam is not a perceived threat--it is a threat. They have said so time and again: we are dar el harb and by our very existence we are a threat to dar el Islam.  So a faithful radical Muslim has two choices--convert or kill us. UBL has said his number one desire is to convert us to Islam.  That kind of religious fanaticism is not reasoned with. You kill him before he kills you or die. Again--visit Ground Zero.

3) Intelligence is not misleading.  It is either accurate or it is not.  What the political masters do with the intelligence, or choose not to do, is what is misleading. Likewise, Preemptive war is not American or unAmerican.  It is a military tactic like a flaking movement, frontal assault or a pincer movement. The juvenile idea that America cannot strike first is actually a circumlocution for "Americans must die before military action is taken."  Then the question is how many Americans must die before military action is taken--a few dozen, a couple of hundred, several thousand, a few hundred thousand or several million?   

4) Don't call me "buddy." I am not your buddy. You can address me as MasterChief or Master Chief, but not buddy. If you want a buddy get in touch with Elton John. He'll gladly be your buddy. He lives in Atlanta, across from Piedmont Park, and if he isn't home, just walk through the park and you'll find another.    

And none of this has anything to do with the thesis of Walid Phares book.


----------



## bush lover (Jan 10, 2008)

Our President is bravely leading the fight against terrorism and the press makes up trash like this!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece


----------



## eots (Jan 12, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Good Grief,
> 
> 
> > So many misconceptions in one sentence:
> ...



I HAVE NO INTEREST IN HEARING ABOUT YOUR HOMO EROTIC FANTASY'S OR YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON THE EASE OF FINDING BUDDY'S IN THE PARK

AND I CALL NO MAN MASTER..HOWZ BOUT I JUST CALL YA CHIEF


----------



## Taomon (Jan 12, 2008)

Wow, it seems as though this subject has stirred quite the hornets nest. 

Incidentally, not one publication that I submitted my op-ed to printed it. Now I understand why. It was far too controversial a subject.


----------



## CSM (Jan 12, 2008)

Taomon said:


> ....Incidentally, not one publication that I submitted my op-ed to printed it. Now I understand why. It was far too controversial a subject.



Alternatively...maybe they though your opinion was bullshit; maybe they thought it was poorly presented or maybe (just maybe) they don't like you personally.


----------



## Taomon (Jan 12, 2008)

CSM said:


> Alternatively...maybe they though your opinion was bullshit; maybe they thought it was poorly presented or maybe (just maybe) they don't like you personally.



No. I send my op-eds and letters to the editor to several publications and syndicated companies (like the NY Times). Usually I get published locally. Some of the more volatile ones are not printed. 

I would not imagine that every single one disagreed. But I can see how advertisers and shareholders would be upset.

None of them know me personally so that last comment is a dig at me. I don't take it personal and publishers rejections are a normal part of business for writers.


----------



## MasterChief (Jan 14, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No. I send my op-eds and letters to the editor to several publications and syndicated companies (like the NY Times). Usually I get published locally.


That and four bucks gets you a latte at Starbucks.


----------



## Shattered (Jan 14, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> That and four bucks gets you a latte at Starbucks.



Grande Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Light, please.


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2008)

Shattered said:


> I would of taken you for more of a AGrande Skinny Cinnamon douch heavy, please. type


----------



## Shattered (Jan 14, 2008)

eots said:


> ] I would of taken you for more of a AGrande Skinny Cinnamon douch heavy, please. type



It's a good thing I take you for little more than a moronic idiot, as your typing ability demonstrates.


----------



## eots (Jan 14, 2008)

Shattered said:


> It's a good thing I take you for little more than a moronic idiot, as your typing ability demonstrates.



Typing is not my strong point no ..but I never really considered it the measure of a man either...come on dont you even think it was a little bit funny..........shattered ?
......baby.........sweetheart?


----------

