What is the Conservative view of the Iraqi Adventurism

[BaronVonBigmeat]

suppose tomorrow the US administration declares...'No more support to Israel' 'They are on their own'...Do you really believe the continued Jihad by Islam will go away and be directed to just Israel?

Where was the Islamic Jihad BEFORE our support of Israel? How many times does this question have to be asked before one of you guys even makes a token attempt at an answer? Islam has not changed in a thousand years! To be sure, there was probably some small numbers of hothead Islamic clerics itching to try and conquer western lands before Israel. The trouble though, is that your average muslim on the street can't be bothered to give a rat's ass about dying to support some blowhard Imam's idealistic vision.

Unless, of course, he can see the western soldiers walking through the streets of his home town, accidentally killing people who hadn't attacked them. Then suddenly, the Imam's nutty speech starts making a good bit of sense.

so it is all our fault that, insert incedent here) got it.....you should fly over there and appologize......one thing, didn't we warn osama to stop? didn't we warn saddam to stop....so if the lisitania thing is our fault then isn't the invasion of afganistan, iraq, somolia, vietnam etc...all the other sides fault.....i mean we did warn them.....before we killed them.....more than i can say for the terrorists.....they just fly planes into office buildings....

My point about the german warning was simply this: This was not a dastardly attack against wide-eyed isolationist americans. Our citizens were riding on an ammo ship heading into a known war zone. But despite this, we like to tell ourselves, "Hmmph, well that 'strict neutrality' thing sure didn't work out, did it?" I'm not concerned with words, I'm concerned with actions, and in all of the cases you listed, you can see how the USA was NOT just some innocent bystander who got attacked.

 

[Gunny]

Where was the Islamic Jihad BEFORE our support of Israel? How many times does this question have to be asked before one of you guys even makes a token attempt at an answer? Islam has not changed in a thousand years! To be sure, there was probably some small numbers of hothead Islamic clerics itching to try and conquer western lands before Israel. The trouble though, is that your average muslim on the street can't be bothered to give a rat's ass about dying to support some blowhard Imam's idealistic vision.

Why should anyone attempt to answer your arbitrary question? Islam has been at war with the West/Christianity since the 7th century. The US didn't even exist.

Be that as it may, if our support of a democracy over 7th century theocracy is their problem, then I can see where a person with functioning brain might be on our side of the issue.

Unless, of course, he can see the western soldiers walking through the streets of his home town, accidentally killing people who hadn't attacked them. Then suddenly, the Imam's nutty speech starts making a good bit of sense.

You mean those soldiers who are there in an attempt to keep some religious nutcase from blowing himself up on your imaginary friend's wife and kids while they're in the market?

My point about the german warning was simply this: This was not a dastardly attack against wide-eyed isolationist americans. Our citizens were riding on an ammo ship heading into a known war zone. But despite this, we like to tell ourselves, "Hmmph, well that 'strict neutrality' thing sure didn't work out, did it?" I'm not concerned with words, I'm concerned with actions, and in all of the cases you listed, you can see how the USA was NOT just some innocent bystander who got attacked.

Germany was warned about attacking noncombatant ships by Wilson. Kaiser Wilhelm at first stopped the attacks, then resumed them. It doesn't matter WHAT was on the Lusitania ..... it was an unarmed ship carrying passengers.

If the US were to blow up exactly the same type ship under like conditions, you'd be calling for Bush's head for war crimes, and the cargo of ammo as suppressed and ignored in your argument as you could manage.

There is no real evidence to support the Pear Harbor conspracy theory. That FDR provoked an attack we were unprepared for is easy enough to believe, but that he had foreknowledge of and allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen is unsubstantiated conjecture.

The Spanish American war was predicated on an attack on the USS Maine. History has shown the "attack" was actually a boiler explosion. However, that was not known at the time, and the most logical conclusion was we had been attacked. That it was a fraud is a conspiracy theory.

Gulf of Tonkin ....

On July 31, 1964, the American destroyer USS Maddox (DD-731) began a reconnaissance mission in the Gulf of Tonkin and was attacked by three North Vietnamese patrol boats inside of international waters on August 2, 1964.

The Maddox, suffering only superficial damage by a single machine gun bullet, retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by the destroyer C. Turner Joy.

On August 4, a DESOTO patrol to North Vietnam coast was launched by Maddox and the C. Turner Joy. The former got radar and radio signals that they believed to signal another attack by the North Vietnamese. For some two hours the ships fired on radar targets and maneuvered vigorously amid electronic and visual reports of foes. It is highly unlikely that any North Vietnamese forces were actually in the area during this gunfight. Captain John J. Herrick even admitted that it was nothing more than an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing his ship's own propeller beat." However, at the time most of the crew had believed they were under attack. Also in 1995, General Vo Nguyen Giap, commander-in-chief of North Vietnamese forces at the time, disavowed any involvement with the August 4 incident, though he did confirm the August 2 attack.

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

Looks like you know something Giap doesn't.

Anymore conspiracy theories you want to lay on us?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Germany was warned about attacking noncombatant ships by Wilson. Kaiser Wilhelm at first stopped the attacks, then resumed them. It doesn't matter WHAT was on the Lusitania ..... it was an unarmed ship carrying passengers.

If the US were to blow up exactly the same type ship under like conditions, you'd be calling for Bush's head for war crimes, and the cargo of ammo as suppressed and ignored in your argument as you could manage.

The Lusitania was absolutely loaded with ammunition. No one sane would get on an ammunition boat headed into a blockaded war zone if they knew this. If we had been shipping goods to Germany instead, the British blockade would have sunk our ships just as quickly. In fact, I believe they warned us at the beginning of the war to steer far away from German ports, because merchant ships would be sunk on sight.

And you're absolutely 100% wrong about your second assertion. If the USA were involved in a nasty war with Canada, I wouldn't have a problem with sinking Chinese supply ships docking in a known blockaded area. No one has ever pretended that you have a right to bring a ship into a blockaded war zone, much less a supply ship, it's absurd.

The author, Colin Simpson, in his 1972 best-seller The Lusitania shows how Churchill used the sinking of the Lusitania to bring America into World War I, because when the Lusitania sank, over 100 Americans lost their lives. Churchill's Admiralty changed captains on this fateful voyage and substituted William Turner for the usual captain. As the Lusitania drew near its final destination, the Admiralty ordered the usual military escort ship, the Juno, to abandon its mission, but the Lusitania was not told that it was now alone or that a German submarine was directly in its path. Next, the Admiralty ordered Captain Turner to reduce his speed, thereby making the Lusitania an easy target for torpedoes.

At the hearing held in England following this disaster, Captain Turner was made the scapegoat and found guilty just as the American commanders at Pearl Harbor would later be made scapegoats for that disaster.

http://www.mises.org/story/216

Wilson, like Polk, Lincoln, and McKinley before him, deceitfully made it appear that the alleged enemy started the war by firing the first shot. The German embassy warned Secretary of State Bryan that the British passenger ship, the Lusitania, was carrying illegal weapons and munitions, and was therefore a proper and perfectly legal target for submarines. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan tried to get Wilson to warn Americans not to sail on this ship but he refused to do so, seeing that the opportunity for the loss of American lives would present him with an apparent reason for entering the war. Wilson failed to give the warning and Bryan later resigned. Over 100 Americans were killed when a German submarine sank the Lusitania.

http://www.mises.org/web/2674

There is no real evidence to support the Pear Harbor conspracy theory. That FDR provoked an attack we were unprepared for is easy enough to believe, but that he had foreknowledge of and allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen is unsubstantiated conjecture.

There are mountains of evidence to support the idea that something was rotten prior to Pearl Harbor. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743201299/qid=1134362051/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-2142035-2179033?s=books&v=glance&n=283155]Day of Deceit[/ame] is one (with 60+ pages of documentation at the back, as well as scanned government documents), as well as [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465024653/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/103-2142035-2179033?%5Fencoding=UTF8]The New Dealer's War[/ame], which discusses Operation Rainbow Five, the plan to manuver Japan into firing the first shot.

Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack. The plan was outlined in a U.S. Naval Intelligence secret strategy memo of October 1940; Roosevelt immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which, according to Stinnett, climaxed in the Japanese attack. Stinnett, a decorated naval veteran of WWII who served under then Lt. George Bush, substantiates his charges with a wealth of persuasive documents, including many government and military memos and transcripts. Demolishing the myth that the Japanese fleet maintained strict radio silence, he shows that several Japanese naval broadcasts, intercepted by American cryptographers in the 10 days before December 7, confirmed that Japan intended to start the war at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett convincingly demonstrates that the U.S. top brass in Hawaii--Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Husband Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Walter Short--were kept out of the intelligence loop on orders from Washington and were then scapegoated for allegedly failing to anticipate the Japanese attack (in May 1999, the U.S. Senate cleared their names). Kimmel moved his fleet into the North Pacific, actively searching for the suspected Japanese staging area, but naval headquarters ordered him to turn back.

Thanks for the wiki link, it helps prove my point. A US boat along the coast of Vietnam is shot at by the Vietnamese. Imagine that! If the USSR had been patrolling the California coast that closely, you'd have no problem with the US Navy blowing them out of the water. Oh and then there's this little gem:

On November 30, 2005, the National Security Agency released hundreds of pages of long-secret documents on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. The most provocative document is a 2001 article in which an agency historian, Robert J. Hanyok, argued that the agency's intelligence officers "deliberately skewed" the evidence passed on to policy makers and the public to falsely suggest that North Vietnamese ships had attacked American destroyers on Aug. 4, 1964. Mr. Hanyok wrote that 90 percent of the intercepts of North Vietnamese communications relevant to the supposed Aug. 4, 1964, attack were omitted from the major agency documents going to policy makers.

What other grade-school historical myths do you believe in? Lincoln was a saint who started a moral crusade to end slavery? FDR got us out of the great depression? People thought the world was flat until Columbus proved otherwise? The founding fathers were fundamentalist christians? Churchill was a saint?

 

[Psychoblues]

This conversation was going so spendidly until your inane contribution, manu. No one has suggested or even intimated your suggestions. Why do you make such senseless innuendo? Entertainment, maybe?

Psychoblues

so it is all our fault that, insert incedent here) got it.....you should fly over there and appologize......one thing, didn't we warn osama to stop? didn't we warn saddam to stop....so if the lisitania thing is our fault then isn't the invasion of afganistan, iraq, somolia, vietnam etc...all the other sides fault.....i mean we did warn them.....before we killed them.....more than i can say for the terrorists.....they just fly planes into office buildings....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A) We are (in theory) supposed to be a republic. That means that the majority cannot run all over the rights of the minority. .

Im not sure why you are even bothering with this. It only makes you look silly. This discussion isnt in front of a bunch of high school kids, everyone on this board is intelligent enough to know we live in a democracy, and exactly what that means without having to go into semantics and definitions of "democracy".

B) That is socialism AND democracy. "The people" have long supported good-sounding rubbish such as "free" health care, progressive income taxes, socialized retirement plans, "free" schooling, etc. The fact that the people support it doesn't make it any less tyrannnical. The right wing used to make the exact same argument I'm making right now, only 10 years ago. (And the left was making the exact opposite arguments too, heh.).

Yes, AND, being the key word. And dont go blaming neo cons on that situation, we fight socialism. And you need to go re read the ACCURATE definition of tyranny.

C) I'm not arguing for totalitarian government, all I'm saying is: democracy isn't some wonderful magical miracle pill that will automatically bring peace and prosperity everywhere it's tried. .

Thats irrelevant. Democracy is the naturally born right of every person alive. Read the Declaration of Ind. The reason the rights are declared is because they are given to PEOPLE unalienably by their Creator, not because its the best form of govt.

D) I'm not familiar with all of WJ's views, but he appears to be a noninterventionist as far as Iraq goes, and that's what this thread is about--not racism. Changing the topic to his support of whatever race laws you're talking about is a red herring. He didn't bring it up..

Thas precisely what people like him depend on to lure people into his CLAN.
If a person has other views I disagree with, often I can accept it. But HIS views and the policies he endorses and wants to see implemented are clearly as evil and vile as the terrorists. Im married to a filipina, by his standards, that should be illegal. He thinks he has the right to tell me what race I can marry. FUCK HIM. Its the scummiest, most vile, evil value a person can have. It leads to all kinds of human suffering and evil. His basis is that races are different, and some are superior in some areas (although asians score higher than whites on IQ testing, which he uses to prove whites are superior to blacks and browns, yet he doesnt support the notion of Asians ruling the world)

I have heavy disagreements with alot of people, but if I ran into them in a bar, and we discussed politics, religion, etc. we probably would still laugh and have a good time. IF I met WJ in a bar for the first time, and he expressed his racist views, I would tell him to leave or I will kick his ass. Im serious, and I have done it before. I could easily get along with virtually everyone in the forums, even those I vehemently disagree with, as I know how to set those differences aside for the sake of socializing. However, there are three people I have met online that if I saw them in person, I would either A) tell them to leave the premises Immediately, and/or just flat out kick their asses.

One attacked my wife online using personal slurs. I ended that and got an apology, online. But I still wouldnt tolerate his presence.

Another attempted to chat with my wife behind my back and get her to go out with him and asked her personal sexual questions even after she said she didnt want to discuss such things, upon which she then ended the conversation. I was in Manila the same time he was, but he was the usual online hero, in person coward, and wouldnt meet up with me.

Racism is associated with conservatives. Its used, wrongly, against us. Just like people are asking why mainstream muslims arent publicly denouncing terrorist attacks, it makes the general public conclude they accept it.

Using the same logic, I DENOUNCE in the strongest terms any, ANY attempt by any racists to bring themselves and their values into my party. YES< MY PARTY. WE DO NOT ACCEPT RACISM, SEXISM, OR HOMOPHOBIA IN THE SLIGHTEST.

I have a picture of a black man lynched in a tree, with a bunch of white people milling around like the body is that of a deer or something. ITS SICKENING and evil. WJ could easily be in that crowd. He will deny it, but read the websites he recommends. I HAVE.

These types of people, when they attempt to associate themselves with MY PARTY, MY other vallues, I will attack, hound, pester attack and attack them. Relentlessly.

Like blood money, I reject ANY support he offers for any of my causes. In the long run, accepting his support for anything will only lead to harm and suffering for anyone who accepts it. He always will have alterior motives. He will pretend to be your buddy, just like Hitler did.

I suggest watching the movie, I think the title is "American History X", if its wrong, and someone knows the right title, please inform me.

I publicly challenge WJ to a one on one forum debate covering, civilly, his views on racism, white america, and the such. He wont do it. He is a coward. Partial information is their weapon, just like the leftists. When exposed to light, his values will disenegrate like a vampire in sunshine.

I use to visit a fil-am website. It was unmoderated. One guy used to use the term "tree people". He is a bitter racist. I attacked him relentlessly until he stopped using it. Some attacked me for being so brutal on him. But I also received alot of PM's, mostly from females, who said they didnt like posting or reading the site because of that guy and particularly the term "tree people" he would use, as these filipinas (women) were extremely offended and hurt by it. But usually women are not as aggresive as men, and would just walk away from the fight and leave the site. I made the site more palatable for them, and increased the attendance of the site by them. Many thanked me that they can again visit the site.

E) That's odd, I sure do hear a lot of people talking about the USA's god-given mission to topple every 2-bit dictator who couldn't possibly threaten the US, throughout the world. We are not the world's policeman. The right wing used to make the exact same argument I'm making right now, only 10 years ago. .

What most people hear on a personal level is quite a fish eyes view of the rest of the country. I mean this without any slurring or as an attack, but its irrelevant, unless you have traveled extensively across the country and talked to many, many people of all kinds of backgrounds. I did.

F) The Iraqi government has already snuggled up to Iran. Their constitution places practically no limits on government power. .

saying so doesnt make it so. Tell us which part of the Constitution provides no limits on govt. As for Iran, well, its their neighbor. Its good for them to try to mend the broken fence saddam made. I mean, not that long ago, Iraqi's were killing Iranians. What would yo want them to do, ignore them? State them their official enemy?

G) I didn't say democracy had peaked. I said freedom had peaked. It was during the early 20th century (starting around 1913, for the US) that we see the emergence of the Total State--the income tax, the federal reserve, the New Deal, all forms of socialism, the UN, and centralization of power away from the states.

You may be right on that, its hard to compare generation now with the advent of technology. It will be impossible to compare the eras anymore. But it doesnt really matter, we need to just continue the struggle against control freaks (who are in the main in the Dem party). I think you and I are on the same page on this one.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Free societies prosper, because the power of more individuals is unleashed. True, many will not understand freedom at first, but they must be freed so they don't become human bombers against us. It's for us as much for them. Isolationism is suicide in this era of ICBM's. That's the fact, jack.

so true. The industrial revolution, internet, global travel via plane, and ships, wireless communications, sattelites, tv, etc,etc, has made the world smaller. If we could have isolated a 100 years ago, maybe. But this day and age, NO WAY. Even the great depression proved we could not isolate.

This day and age, if we attempted isolation, we would sink. Its a global economy now. No turning back unless you want to live in a cave, if you do, say hello to Osama for me!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

so true. The industrial revolution, internet, global travel via plane, and ships, wireless communications, sattelites, tv, etc,etc, has made the world smaller. If we could have isolated a 100 years ago, maybe. But this day and age, NO WAY. Even the great depression proved we could not isolate.

This day and age, if we attempted isolation, we would sink. Its a global economy now. No turning back unless you want to live in a cave, if you do, say hello to Osama for me!

Yep. The us pulling out of global affairs including trade and security would be disastrous for the entire world. We may be the last man standing, but only after global devestation and all forms of madmanism have swept the globe. Autarky ain't smart.

 

[Gunny]

The Lusitania was absolutely loaded with ammunition. No one sane would get on an ammunition boat headed into a blockaded war zone if they knew this. If we had been shipping goods to Germany instead, the British blockade would have sunk our ships just as quickly. In fact, I believe they warned us at the beginning of the war to steer far away from German ports, because merchant ships would be sunk on sight.

And you're absolutely 100% wrong about your second assertion. If the USA were involved in a nasty war with Canada, I wouldn't have a problem with sinking Chinese supply ships docking in a known blockaded area. No one has ever pretended that you have a right to bring a ship into a blockaded war zone, much less a supply ship, it's absurd.



http://www.mises.org/story/216



http://www.mises.org/web/2674



There are mountains of evidence to support the idea that something was rotten prior to Pearl Harbor. Day of Deceit is one (with 60+ pages of documentation at the back, as well as scanned government documents), as well as The New Dealer's War, which discusses Operation Rainbow Five, the plan to manuver Japan into firing the first shot.



Thanks for the wiki link, it helps prove my point. A US boat along the coast of Vietnam is shot at by the Vietnamese. Imagine that! If the USSR had been patrolling the California coast that closely, you'd have no problem with the US Navy blowing them out of the water. Oh and then there's this little gem:



What other grade-school historical myths do you believe in? Lincoln was a saint who started a moral crusade to end slavery? FDR got us out of the great depression? People thought the world was flat until Columbus proved otherwise? The founding fathers were fundamentalist christians? Churchill was a saint?

I've read up on most of your little conspiracy theories. Don't buy them myself. Skeptisim of one's government is one thing. Dreaming up conspiratorial crap quite another. No matter how many accusations and/or how many and whose opinions you post, there still is no REAL evidence to support them.

Myths are not supported by fact. My previous post is. Your accusations are not.

But if it makes you happy, I subscribe to none of the theories you listed, except that the majority of our founding fathers WERE Christians. And please spare me the Thomas Jefferson quotes that always come out as evidence they were not. Jefferson and one or two others do not all of the founding fathers make.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I've read up on most of your little conspiracy theories. Don't buy them myself. Skeptisim of one's government is one thing. Dreaming up conspiratorial crap quite another. No matter how many accusations and/or how many and whose opinions you post, there still is no REAL evidence to support them.

Myths are not supported by fact. My previous post is. Your accusations are not.

But if it makes you happy, I subscribe to none of the theories you listed, except that the majority of our founding fathers WERE Christians. And please spare me the Thomas Jefferson quotes that always come out as evidence they were not. Jefferson and one or two others do not all of the founding fathers make.

Also, if Germany imposed a blockade on UK, we dont honor or recognize it. It was an act of AGRESSION by the Germans. The opposite, a blockade on Germany might be honored by us, but we were not "bound" to honor Germany's blockade of Britian. We are sovereign and have the right to trade with anyone we want to. If someone tries to stop us, thats an act of war, hence the Germans fired the first salvo.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ahh, the tried-and-true "The voters have spoken! We have a mandate!" routine. I can remember a time when it was the Clintonites using that line, and Conservatives (rightly) bashing it. How times have changed.

Not true at all. A vast majority of conservatives dont have a problem when the left gets its way via the ballot box. What the right, rightly, gripes about is how the left usurps the majority vote via judicial fiat.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The truth comes out? How was it ever a secret? If the US did not have vital interest in the region, what would be the point of putting over half our military force there?

I have not attempted to tie Saddam to anything more than his own megalomaniacal mechanizations, for which he has paid dearly I might add. I have no real problem with taking out Saddam as he was something that the US was going to have to deal with sooner or later.

However, I consider invading Iraq to be ill-timed, and it has sidetracked using out armed forces to hunt down terrorists that on a list of priorities, are and were far more dangerous to the US itself than some two-bit dictator with an overblown ego.

Be that as it may, Monday Morning QB-ing accomplishes nothing. We are there and we need to finish what we started.

Ha!, Your first three sentences were almost exactly what I was thinking as I was reading Bigs post.

I do disagree with your "timing" assesment of Iraq however, and tracking down the terrorists. President Bush did a brilliant thing. Instead of tracking down the terrorists, (which I think our intelligence is doing) we are drawing them to us in Iraqi.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

so it is all our fault that, insert incedent here) got it.....you should fly over there and appologize......one thing, didn't we warn osama to stop? didn't we warn saddam to stop....so if the lisitania thing is our fault then isn't the invasion of afganistan, iraq, somolia, vietnam etc...all the other sides fault.....i mean we did warn them.....before we killed them.....more than i can say for the terrorists.....they just fly planes into office buildings....

hahhahah, Big wants to cite the Swiss as an example of how isolationism/neutrality is sucessful. I wonder how long he thinks Hitler would have waited to invade if he had defeated Britian and Russia? Their sucess at it is only because they are a small country, and it saved Hitler manpower and the such since the cowardly swiss were not willing to stand up against Hitler (where good men do nothing, evil will flourish), AND because the big boys on the block were able to take care of the bully.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This conversation was going so spendidly until your inane contribution, manu. No one has suggested or even intimated your suggestions. Why do you make such senseless innuendo? Entertainment, maybe?

Psychoblues

Senseless? Manu was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of the assertation by making an analogy of the Germans warning us, with us Warning the terrorists.

Only thing is, in the case of us warning the terrorists, we were telling them to stop violence and criminal activity, but the Germans were warning us to stop something we were legally entitled to do.