PDA

View Full Version : Iraq War update


patteeu
06-13-2006, 01:53 PM
We're still winning. :Poke:

banyon
06-13-2006, 02:13 PM
The Department of Defense has identified 2,491 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:

ALDAY, Zachary M., 22, Seaman Apprentice, Navy; Donalsonville, Ga.; Seventh Marines, Seventh Regimental Combat Team, First Marine Expeditionary Force.

GUERRERO, Salvador, 21, Lance Cpl., Marines; Los Angeles; First Marine Division.

McSWAIN, Clarence D., 31, Sgt. First Class, Army; Meridian, Miss.; 101st Airborne Division.

SLAVEN, Benjamin J., 22, Pvt., Army Reserve; Plymouth, Neb.; 308th Transportation Company.

VAUGHAN, John S., 23, Second Lt., Army; Edwards, Colo.; Second Battalion, First Infantry, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

ZOUCHA, Brent B., 19, Lance Cpl., Marines; Merrick, Neb.; First Marine Division.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/us/13list.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Every day we "win" squanders more of our finest Americans.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 02:21 PM
Sadly, winning a war is not free of cost. Fortunately, to speak of the silver lining in that particular dark cloud, the price of defending our interests abroad has dropped dramatically since the days of WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. We should be thankful for that fact.

Mr. Kotter
06-13-2006, 03:11 PM
The Department of Defense has identified 2,491 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/us/13list.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Every day we "win" squanders more of our finest Americans.
As a former active duty Army officer, I strongly suspect the vast majority of the families of those who have died would be insulted by your characterization of their loved one's lives as having been "squandered."

Kind of like the 9/11 widows feel about Coulter's remarks....

carlos3652
06-13-2006, 03:14 PM
This is a email I recieved today thought I would share it:

An article by California lawyer, Raymond Kraft:



A Perspective on Iraq War

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France had aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because NONE of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression. At the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. Yes, more than a million.

Had Russia surrendered then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe. England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and isolated without any allies (not even the Brits). The US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.
Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there, we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more than a "Token Force" to keep face with the US. And once attacked, like the train bombing in Madrid, they pull their forces and run for home. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost over 2,300 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span now, conditioned I suppose by 1 hour TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight a minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms, or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.



Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

banyon
06-13-2006, 03:23 PM
As a former active duty Army officer, I strongly suspect the vast majority of the families of those who have died would be insulted by your characterization of their loved one's lives as having been "squandered."

Kind of like the 9/11 widows feel about Coulter's remarks....

Kotter you know damn well that's a judgment about the value of the foreign policy decision and not an evaluation of their contribution to the Armed Services. Stop trying to cage rattle.

memyselfI
06-13-2006, 03:34 PM
This is a email I recieved today thought I would share it:

An article by California lawyer, Raymond Kraft:



A Perspective on Iraq War



Guess Rush Limbaugh talking about this article has all the RWNJs frantically forwarding it all over cyberspace.

Chief Henry
06-13-2006, 03:40 PM
Guess Rush Limbaugh talking about this article has all the RWNJs frantically forwarding it all over cyberspace.


Just because you dislike Rush's views and ideas...doesn't make this mans writings untrue.

Radar Chief
06-13-2006, 03:49 PM
Guess Rush Limbaugh talking about this article has all the RWNJs frantically forwarding it all over cyberspace.

Is that a LWNJ deflection? ROFL

HC_Chief
06-13-2006, 03:51 PM
We're still winning. :Poke:

Nuh-uh. Didn't you hear? al zarqawi's role was grossly exaggerated... he was merely a fat bastard; not a terrorist leader! Saddam too. He was a fun-loving, peaceful grandpa. No mass graves. No WMD. Clinton got 'em all. After we sold 'em all to him. We have the receipts. Bush eats babies. Oligarchy. Haliburton. No blood for oil.

out.

banyon
06-13-2006, 03:56 PM
The Musings of Raymond Kraft:

...[Jihadism is teh Hitler]... :rolleyes:

Why do people not remember that Saddam ran one of the only secular governments in the Middle East?

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

:shake: Pakistan already has the bomb. And if you are going to paint all of the Middle east with one broad stroke as "Nazi Jihaddists" then they've got to be included.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

Wait, are we fighting everyone working on nukes now?

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

"Jihad" hasn't really expanded since Charles Martel stopped them in 732.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

???Pretty specious at best. You have to buy into the American Enterptise Literature pretty thick to buy what's being sold here.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

alarmist propaganda at its best right here. If I used this sort of language to talk about Global warming, everybody would berate me for being an insane stooge.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

Like others, he conveniently ignores the broad support received for operations in Afghanistan.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Really? Why didn't the Nazis win then? F***ing Pacifists.



Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too.

not to mention the history that is unknown by Raymond Kraft.

oldandslow
06-13-2006, 04:04 PM
Rep Banyon...

That was an excellent response.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 06:02 PM
Nice reply Banyon. Well done.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:50 PM
Rep Banyon...

That was an excellent response.

It was? What part?

Why do people not remember that Saddam ran one of the only secular governments in the Middle East?

Why do you think people forget this? Many of those who hate the Jews of Israel also hate the US and our president even if we've never had a Jew hold that office. They hate us because we support Israel. Saddam supported islamic radicals in the region not because he shared their ideologies but presumably because he believed that destabilization served his purposes.

Pakistan already has the bomb. And if you are going to paint all of the Middle east with one broad stroke as "Nazi Jihaddists" then they've got to be included.

It's true, of course, that Pakistan has the bomb and that's not a comforting thought. Fortunately for us, the jihadists don't have the bomb yet because General Musharraf stands in their way. This is a fragile distinction, but a distinction nontheless. We must hope that reformist (to use Raymond Kraft's terminology) factions within Pakistan retain control and do what we can to support that outcome on an ongoing basis. This is similar to Kraft's point about OPEC oil currently being in the hands of moderates but that there is the danger that jihadists could eventually gain control.

Wait, are we fighting everyone working on nukes now?

I don't really understand this one, but certainly Mr. Kraft isn't suggesting that we are fighting everyone working on nukes since he makes it clear that the war he envisions is against a specific minority within Islam.

Like others, he conveniently ignores the broad support received for operations in Afghanistan.

I don't see how he is ignoring that at all. What good would it have been to support the US action at Guadalcanal if you were going to go anti-war and oppose Iwo Jima?

BTW, 7,000 US soldiers and marines died at Iwo Jima. Over 1,500 Americans died at Guadalcanal.

Really? Why didn't the Nazis win then? F***ing Pacifists.

Because they weren't fighting against pacifists. That's one of the primary points Mr. Kraft is making in his essay.

mlyonsd
06-13-2006, 07:55 PM
Rep pat...

That was an excellent response.

Logical
06-13-2006, 08:45 PM
Sadly, winning a war is not free of cost. Fortunately, to speak of the silver lining in that particular dark cloud, the price of defending our interests abroad has dropped dramatically since the days of WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. We should be thankful for that fact.

Not sure how you are defining winning.

We actually won the war once we overthrew Hussein and captured him.

We have been losing ever since that point as we have no more to gain and only lives and money to lose.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 08:51 PM
Not sure how you are defining winning.

We actually won the war once we overthrew Hussein and captured him.

We have been losing ever since that point as we have no more to gain and only lives and money to lose.


Yeah - a democracy in the Mid-East has no benefit for us. TacoJim position has more to do with giving yourselves something to do during the week than an actual intellectual thought.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 08:54 PM
Yeah - a democracy in the Mid-East has no benefit for us. TacoJim position has more to do with giving yourselves something to do during the week than an actual intellectual thought.
We have a democracy in the middle east, Israel. Perhaps you can explain how that's been such a great boon for us....other than giving us former Haganah Sniper Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and the movie Raid on Entebbe? :p

Logical
06-13-2006, 08:56 PM
Yeah - a democracy in the Mid-East has no benefit for us. TacoJim position has more to do with giving yourselves something to do during the week than an actual intellectual thought.

You are kidding yourself if you actually believe a Democracy will be the end result, now had you said Theocracy then I might have been willing to have a reasonable discussion on whether there are merits. Hint: in the end the Theocracy that will result in Iraq will turn on us, it is inevitable based on the tenets of Islam.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2006, 08:58 PM
We're still winning. :Poke:

Here's a movie quote for you and those of your ilk to ponder. It's made by the ficititious Colonel Trautman to a vicious Soviet Commander during the Afghanistan War in Rambo III.

"You know there won't be a victory. What happened was you underestimated your competition. If you studied your history, you'd know that these people have never given in to anyone. They'd rather die than be slaves to an invading army. You can't defeat a people like that. We tried. We've already had our Vietnam, now you're going to get yours!"

patteeu
06-13-2006, 09:06 PM
Here's a movie quote for you and those of your ilk to ponder. It's made by the ficititious Colonel Trautman to a vicious Soviet Commander during the Afghanistan War in Rambo III.

"You know there won't be a victory. What happened was you underestimated your competition. If you studied your history, you'd know that these people have never given in to anyone. They'd rather die than be slaves to an invading army. You can't defeat a people like that. We tried. We've already had our Vietnam, now you're going to get yours!"

I'll keep that quote in mind for the next time I decide to get my geopolitical analysis from a Rambo movie. Thanks, man.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 09:12 PM
I'll keep that quote in mind for the next time I decide to get my geopolitical analysis from a Rambo movie. Thanks, man.


ROFL

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 09:13 PM
Here's a movie quote for you and those of your ilk to ponder. It's made by the ficititious Colonel Trautman to a vicious Soviet Commander during the Afghanistan War in Rambo III.

"You know there won't be a victory. What happened was you underestimated your competition. If you studied your history, you'd know that these people have never given in to anyone. They'd rather die than be slaves to an invading army. You can't defeat a people like that. We tried. We've already had our Vietnam, now you're going to get yours!"


The drunken Russian army was a real force!

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:14 PM
Here's a movie quote for you and those of your ilk to ponder. It's made by the ficititious Colonel Trautman to a vicious Soviet Commander during the Afghanistan War in Rambo III.

"You know there won't be a victory. What happened was you underestimated your competition. If you studied your history, you'd know that these people have never given in to anyone. They'd rather die than be slaves to an invading army. You can't defeat a people like that. We tried. We've already had our Vietnam, now you're going to get yours!"

What is horrible is that we did not learn from Vietnam and we are now repeating our own tragic mistake.

HC_Chief
06-14-2006, 08:54 AM
What is horrible is that we did not learn from Vietnam and we are now repeating our own tragic mistake.

Our military disagrees wholeheartedly... but you continue to espouse that line. It helps to distinguish you from the truly logical thinkers. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 08:58 AM
What is horrible is that we did not learn from Vietnam and we are now repeating our own tragic mistake.Iraq could become a scaled down version of Vietnam, but it isn't there yet. Not even close.

OTOH, it could also become another Japan or Korea too. Of course, critics are unable to see the possibility due to their biases.

Chief Faithful
06-14-2006, 10:20 AM
You are kidding yourself if you actually believe a Democracy will be the end result, now had you said Theocracy then I might have been willing to have a reasonable discussion on whether there are merits. Hint: in the end the Theocracy that will result in Iraq will turn on us, it is inevitable based on the tenets of Islam.

Islam has been around about 1600 years and has never resulted in lasting unity of the people of Iraq or the people of the Middle East. There are as many different sects of Islam as there are tribes. What makes you think that will change? Can you give me an example of any Theocracy in the Middle East?

Chief Faithful
06-14-2006, 10:34 AM
What is horrible is that we did not learn from Vietnam and we are now repeating our own tragic mistake.

I don't see any common threads between Vietnam and Iraq. Where is the Communist government receiving military arms and advisers from the Soviet Union and China? Where is the failed government in Iraq? Where is the lack of political will by American Presidents to attack the Communist government? Where is the treaty with the French that says we will support them in any military conflict?

I don't see any parrallels and I don't see American failing only succeeding in one objective after another.

banyon
06-14-2006, 11:23 AM
Rep pat...

That was an excellent response.

It was? what part?

It was like patteeu read my responses and reacted to them without reading the source material I was commenting on.

Why do people not remember that Saddam ran one of the only secular governments in the Middle East?

Why do you think people forget this? Many of those who hate the Jews of Israel also hate the US and our president even if we've never had a Jew hold that office. They hate us because we support Israel. Saddam supported islamic radicals in the region not because he shared their ideologies but presumably because he believed that destabilization served his purposes.

Because Mr. Kraft created this invective which tries to justify our occupation of Iraq because we are stiking at "Radical Jihadism"
When, in fact, Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9-11 hijackers were from), Sudan (where the training camps were), or Afghanistan (where our focus should still be) were all better targets if your goal is to strike at the "heart" of Radical Jihadism. Saddam was originally our ally specifically because he did not get along with these forces. To now try to post-hoc justify our invasion that way is intellectually bankrupt.

Pakistan already has the bomb. And if you are going to paint all of the Middle east with one broad stroke as "Nazi Jihaddists" then they've got to be included.


It's true, of course, that Pakistan has the bomb and that's not a comforting thought. Fortunately for us, the jihadists don't have the bomb yet because General Musharraf stands in their way. This is a fragile distinction, but a distinction nontheless. We must hope that reformist (to use Raymond Kraft's terminology) factions within Pakistan retain control and do what we can to support that outcome on an ongoing basis. This is similar to Kraft's point about OPEC oil currently being in the hands of moderates but that there is the danger that jihadists could eventually gain control.

True, but his glossing over this fact isn't exactly comforting. Additionally, us installing governments and then leaving doesn't ensure that weaponry will fall out of "friendly hands" into "enemy jihadist" hands.



Wait, are we fighting everyone working on nukes now?

I don't really understand this one, but certainly Mr. Kraft isn't suggesting that we are fighting everyone working on nukes since he makes it clear that the war he envisions is against a specific minority within Islam.

Well, he is contemplating here "preemptively" going after unfriendly countries with nukes before they acquire them (viz. Iran). Why should we be any less vigilant against non-"jihadist" regimes that pose a threat. It only makes sense to me then to go after anyone who is developing nukes and represents a possible threat, unless, of course this is all ethnically based or something.

Like others, he conveniently ignores the broad support received for operations in Afghanistan.

I don't see how he is ignoring that at all. What good would it have been to support the US action at Guadalcanal if you were going to go anti-war and oppose Iwo Jima?

BTW, 7,000 US soldiers and marines died at Iwo Jima. Over 1,500 Americans died at Guadalcanal.

You don't see how he is ignoring that? Did you read his post with eyepatches over both eyes? Here's what the dude said:

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

So it's black-and white. You're with us or you're with the terrorists, et. al. Yeah, it's a false dichotomy, but it's one that he has clearly made.


Really? Why didn't the Nazis win then? F***ing Pacifists.


Because they weren't fighting against pacifists. That's one of the primary points Mr. Kraft is making in his essay.

:shake: again, that's not what dude says:

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

So, it would follow, then, that we beat the Nazis because we were more ruthless. That is something that I will never believe about America or its soldiers, that they are more ruthless than Nazis.

patteeu
06-14-2006, 12:37 PM
It was? what part?

ROFL

Because Mr. Kraft created this invective which tries to justify our occupation of Iraq because we are stiking at "Radical Jihadism"
When, in fact, Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9-11 hijackers were from), Sudan (where the training camps were), or Afghanistan (where our focus should still be) were all better targets if your goal is to strike at the "heart" of Radical Jihadism. Saddam was originally our ally specifically because he did not get along with these forces. To now try to post-hoc justify our invasion that way is intellectually bankrupt.

I think I addressed that point directly when I tried to explain to you why Saddam didn't actually have to be a jihadist himself to be a part of the jihadist problem. Back in the day when "Saddam was orginally our ally" it wasn't in his interest to stoke anti-Americanism in the region. Since he was smacked down in GWI, he has, perhaps understandably, changed his perspective.

Whether Saddam's Iraq was the absolute best next target in our GWoT is certainly debateable, but it is unjustifiably arrogant, IMO, to play the "intellectually bankrupt" card because you don't agree with it. And since most, if not all, of these arguments were advanced prior to the invasion, "post-hoc" doesn't really accurately describe them.

[quote=banyon]Well, he is contemplating here "preemptively" going after unfriendly countries with nukes before they acquire them (viz. Iran). Why should we be any less vigilant against non-"jihadist" regimes that pose a threat. It only makes sense to me then to go after anyone who is developing nukes and represents a possible threat, unless, of course this is all ethnically based or something.

It's not ethnically based, it's ideologically based. If Canada decided to develop nuclear weapons, I'm sure we wouldn't like it and would strongly oppose it, but we wouldn't see it as a threat on the same level as we would if Castro's Cuba were doing the same. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of Canada versus Cuba.

You don't see how he is ignoring that? Did you read his post with eyepatches over both eyes? Here's what the dude said:


So it's black-and white. You're with us or you're with the terrorists, et. al. Yeah, it's a false dichotomy, but it's one that he has clearly made.

The issue he's discussing is Iraq and the state of support at the time he wrote his piece. It doesn't matter if you were an Afghanistan supporter like yourself and it doesn't matter if you once were an Iraq invasion supporter like Logical if you now want to cut and run. There are, I suppose, an infinite range of possibilities about what to do NOW ranging from full-on retreat to nuclear annihilation, but there is nothing wrong with distilling this down to two general categories of disengage versus fight to win. Sure, it's technically a false dichotomy, but anything short of identifying the infinite possibilities is a simplification to some degree.

A person's support of Afghanistan might be evidence that she wants America to win the GWoT, but her lack of support for winning in Iraq means that people like Mr. Kraft and myself view her as a part of the current problem even if she is a well-intentioned part.

As I said before, our war against Japan wouldn't have been served well if people failed to support the later battles (e.g. Iwo Jima) in the war regardless of whether they could point to earlier support (e.g. Guadalcanal) to "prove" their pro-America bona fides. You might not agree with the tactics in the GWoT, but we can't all be CiC and we shouldn't be running the war democratically, IMO.

:shake: again, that's not what dude says:

So, it would follow, then, that we beat the Nazis because we were more ruthless. That is something that I will never believe about America or its soldiers, that they are more ruthless than Nazis.

I don't think that the Nazi's were any more ruthless at fighting the war than we were. Nazi attrocities are probably easier to find (i.e. more publicized) because we won the war, but I doubt that either side was notably more ruthless than the other. We'd be better off now if we were as ruthless now as we were during WWII.

But, I will agree with you that Mr. Kraft overstates his case when he suggests that the more ruthless always win because it's obviously the case that Abu al Zarqawi was more ruthless than most, if not all, of our soldiers/marines and he still lost. I think the only sensible way to interpret Kraft's comment is that ruthlessness is more effective in warfare than pacifism.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 01:05 PM
ROFL

* * *

I don't think that the Nazi's were any more ruthless than we were. Nazi attrocities are probably easier to find (i.e. more publicized) because we won the war, but I doubt that either side was notably more ruthless than the other. We'd be better off now if were as ruthless now as we were during WWII. . .what's this?

an analogy?

don't you know that you are equating wwii with iraq?

since they are not alike in all respects, your point is moot... :p :p :p

mlyonsd
06-14-2006, 01:24 PM
It was? what part?

It was like patteeu read my responses and reacted to them without reading the source material I was commenting on.





Because Mr. Kraft created this invective which tries to justify our occupation of Iraq because we are stiking at "Radical Jihadism"
When, in fact, Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9-11 hijackers were from), Sudan (where the training camps were), or Afghanistan (where our focus should still be) were all better targets if your goal is to strike at the "heart" of Radical Jihadism. Saddam was originally our ally specifically because he did not get along with these forces. To now try to post-hoc justify our invasion that way is intellectually bankrupt.






True, but his glossing over this fact isn't exactly comforting. Additionally, us installing governments and then leaving doesn't ensure that weaponry will fall out of "friendly hands" into "enemy jihadist" hands.







Well, he is contemplating here "preemptively" going after unfriendly countries with nukes before they acquire them (viz. Iran). Why should we be any less vigilant against non-"jihadist" regimes that pose a threat. It only makes sense to me then to go after anyone who is developing nukes and represents a possible threat, unless, of course this is all ethnically based or something.





You don't see how he is ignoring that? Did you read his post with eyepatches over both eyes? Here's what the dude said:



So it's black-and white. You're with us or you're with the terrorists, et. al. Yeah, it's a false dichotomy, but it's one that he has clearly made.







:shake: again, that's not what dude says:



Hey man, chill out. I just agree with patteeu's view more than yours.



So, it would follow, then, that we beat the Nazis because we were more ruthless. That is something that I will never believe about America or its soldiers, that they are more ruthless than Nazis.

I will address this point directly though. To think we were not as ruthless as Germany or Japan in WWII is silly.

We easy killed over 500,000 innocent civilians by fire bombing where they lived. On purpose. I mean we really meant to do it. More civilians died in Tokyo in one night than died in either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. It would have been the same in Germany if the houses weren't made out of wood like in Japan.

The change in tactics by our Army Air Force commanders was done full well knowing civilians were targets.

And, it could be easily argued that because we were as ruthless as we were in WWII and took the war to the German and Japanese people that once they were defeated they had had enough which resulted in fewer cases of insurgents, although there were many.

Kraft's generalization in this area is correct....the pacifist can't win when the enemy is willing to go to all lengths, including killing himself.

banyon
06-14-2006, 01:36 PM
Hey man, chill out. I just agree with patteeu's view more than yours.



I will address this point directly though. To think we were not as ruthless as Germany or Japan in WWII is silly.

We easy killed over 500,000 innocent civilians by fire bombing where they lived. On purpose. I mean we really meant to do it. More civilians died in Tokyo in one night than died in either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. It would have been the same in Germany if the houses weren't made out of wood like in Japan.

The change in tactics by our Army Air Force commanders was done full well knowing civilians were targets.

And, it could be easily argued that because we were as ruthless as we were in WWII and took the war to the German and Japanese people that once they were defeated they had had enough which resulted in fewer cases of insurgents, although there were many.

Kraft's generalization in this area is correct....the pacifist can't win when the enemy is willing to go to all lengths, including killing himself.

Have you ever seen the History channel documentary on the proposed invasion of Kyushu? If we didn't invade, they were planning some fairly ruthless stuff of their own. Here's a wiki excerpt:

In addition, the Japanese had organized nearly all adult civilians into the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps to perform combat support, and ultimately combat jobs. Weapons and training were generally lacking, but they were expected to make do with what they had.

One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told, "Even killing one American soldier will do. Ö You must aim for the abdomen." (Richard B. Frank, Downfall)

Also, are our troops in Iraq more ruthless than Iraqi Suicide bombers? Or Al-Qaeda? Should we fly our planes into The Petronas Towers in Kuala Lampur to show the Muslim world that we are less discriminate and more ruthless in our operations so that we can"win"? Maybe we should just hang up all of the Citizens of Baghdad by thier toenails and skin them alive. Surely that'd be more ruthless. With this logic we couldn't lose... :shake:

Clearly, Mr. Kraft has just used an unfortunate descriptor here of the quality of our troops. You don't win wars because you are more "ruthless". It is a matter of overall strategy and wartime production capacity. If you believe wars are based on something else, then I cannot contemplate what it is you are referring to.

BTW, I am perfectly chill. This is the way patteeu and I always disagree. Lengthy and point-by-point. :p

go bowe
06-14-2006, 01:38 PM
well, tactics have something to do with outcomes of wars, too...

Chief Faithful
06-14-2006, 02:20 PM
We're still winning. :Poke:

Small correction - American won the war now they are assisting to secure the peace. :Poke:

go bowe
06-14-2006, 02:41 PM
absolutely, saddam was removed from power (along with the entire civil structure, police and army)...
]
mission accomplished, you're absolutely right...

but i think assisting may be a bit too generous...

we're pretty much doin' it ourselves at this point...

they're assisting us, more or less, in our present mission...

Logical
06-14-2006, 02:47 PM
Islam has been around about 1600 years and has never resulted in lasting unity of the people of Iraq or the people of the Middle East. There are as many different sects of Islam as there are tribes. What makes you think that will change? Can you give me an example of any Theocracy in the Middle East?
Iraq (now)
Iran
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia

to name just a few

go bowe
06-14-2006, 02:57 PM
Iraq (now)
Iran
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia

to name just a feweh, it looks like a wash to me...

we lost one (the taliban in afghanistan) and gained one (itaq)...

Logical
06-14-2006, 04:44 PM
eh, it looks like a wash to me...

we lost one (the taliban in afghanistan) and gained one (itaq)...Taliban is not in charge in Afghanistan but religious parties are still in charge.

Duck Dog
06-14-2006, 04:54 PM
I'll keep that quote in mind for the next time I decide to get my geopolitical analysis from a Rambo movie. Thanks, man.


LOL :clap:

patteeu
06-14-2006, 05:41 PM
Taliban is not in charge in Afghanistan but religious parties are still in charge.

You've got an enormously broad definition of "theocracy" and of "religious parties." So broad, in fact, that I'd say it parts ways with the accepted understanding of those terms by quite a margin.

Logical
06-14-2006, 06:44 PM
You've got an enormously broad definition of "theocracy" and of "religious parties." So broad, in fact, that I'd say it parts ways with the accepted understanding of those terms by quite a margin.You bet I do, I would be absolutely beside myself if some religion formed a party to run candidates in the US. It would definitely be the beginning of the end for this country as I have known it. It is bad enough the religious have become so ingrained in the conservative political agenda.

Chief Faithful
06-14-2006, 07:31 PM
Iraq (now)
Iran
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia

to name just a few

Iraq is rapidly becoming a Democracy similiar to Lebanon.

Iran - not in the Middle East, is a true Theocracy with real power consolidated among the religeous leaders.

Afghanistan - not in the Middle East, traditions and some laws based on Islamic law, but a developing Democracy.

Saudi Arabia - Monarchy similar to Jordan where power comes from tribal arrangements.

It appears to me there is confusion between traditions founded in religeous heritage with a Theocracy. Do you consider America to be a Theocracy with so many laws and traditions based on Christian traditions and values?

Chief Faithful
06-14-2006, 07:34 PM
Taliban is not in charge in Afghanistan but religious parties are still in charge.

I see war lords, tribal leaders, and govenors. I do not see religious parties. Based on you comments I assume you see Turkey as a Theocracy.

Logical
06-14-2006, 07:48 PM
Iraq is rapidly becoming a Democracy similiar to Lebanon.

Iran - not in the Middle East, is a true Theocracy with real power consolidated among the religeous leaders.

Afghanistan - not in the Middle East, traditions and some laws based on Islamic law, but a developing Democracy.

Saudi Arabia - Monarchy similar to Jordan where power comes from tribal arrangements.

...
You may not consider those ME but I would venture that 95% of all Americans do including yours truly.

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 08:03 PM
Saudi Arabia - Monarchy similar to Jordan where power comes from tribal arrangements.

Saudia Arabia is a monarchy under theocratic law. Sharia is the law of the land, Islam is the state religion, all citizens must be Muslim, and the law is enforced by the Mutawwa'in. Thus Saudia Arabia is a theocracy.

Now, are you going to try to claim that it's not in the ME either? ROFL

Now, hurry over to the other thread Chief Faithful, teenagers are trying to have sex and only the religious nuts at the KSBOE can stop it!

mlyonsd
06-14-2006, 08:11 PM
You bet I do, I would be absolutely beside myself if some religion formed a party to run candidates in the US. It would definitely be the beginning of the end for this country as I have known it. It is bad enough the religious have become so ingrained in the conservative political agenda.

Bleh. You sound as if you are afraid of religion.

One of the founding principles this country was based on was freedom of religion. I interpret that to mean no American should be afraid to throw their religious values into the public square for debate.

I'm not religious by any means but think this country could do worse in digging deep and start taking some religious morals to heart.

Your statement is proof religious persecution is hip.

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 08:41 PM
I'm not religious by any means but think this country could do worse in digging deep and start taking some religious morals to heart.

Which religion, which morals? :hmmm:

As you harm none, do what you will?

or

Suffer not a witch to live?

Turn the other cheek

or

Kill the infidels?

or

Love your neighbor as yourself?

Desire is the root of all suffering, thus remove desire from your mind.

or simply

First, do no harm?

Hence, those with whom he agrees as to the Tao have the happiness
of attaining to it; those with whom he agrees as to its manifestation
have the happiness of attaining to it; and those with whom he agrees
in their failure have also the happiness of attaining (to the Tao).
(But) when there is not faith sufficient (on his part), a want of
faith (in him) ensues (on the part of the others).

or

I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly?

mlyonsd
06-14-2006, 08:43 PM
Which religion, which morals? :hmmm:

As you harm none, do what you will?

or

Suffer not a witch to live?

Turn the other cheek

or

Kill the infidels?

or

Love your neighbor as yourself?

Desire is the root of all suffering, thus remove desire from your mind.

or simply

First, do no harm.

Exactly. They should all be up for debate, not spit upon.

The answer is usually somewhere in the middle.

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 08:48 PM
Exactly. They should all be up for debate, not spit upon.

The answer is usually somewhere in the middle.
I disagree. Some ideals deserve to be spit upon.

The notion that unbelievers must be converted or killed. Plenty of instances of this kind of thinking to go round for many faiths. (I.E. Suffer not a witch to live, or some of the more strident passages in the Koran)

The notion that god or some divine being favors holding another being in bondage, be they Eastern or Western.

The idea that one particular race or faith is the "chosen" people of the divine.

The idea that any faith has the only "true" religion.

JMO.

recxjake
06-14-2006, 08:52 PM
BUSH IS BACK

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 08:54 PM
BUSH IS BACK
As are you, being DC's version of a special needs education recipient.

mlyonsd
06-14-2006, 08:57 PM
I disagree. Some ideals deserve to be spit upon.

The notion that unbelievers must be converted or killed. Plenty of instances of this kind of thinking to go round for many faiths. (I.E. Suffer not a witch to live, or some of the more strident passages in the Koran)

The notion that god or some divine being favors holding another being in bondage, be they Eastern or Western.

The idea that one particular race or faith is the "chosen" people of the divine.

The idea that any faith has the only "true" religion.

JMO.

Fair opinion, I also agree some ideals deserve to be spit upon. That's why the debate.

But most common religions do not believe unbelievers should be killed.

It sounds as if Jim had his way any candidate should denounce any affiliation to a moral belief. That IMO is not what this country was based upon.

Bush, Hillary, or any politician shouldn't be afraid to say their God doesn't believe in "X".

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 09:02 PM
Fair opinion, I also agree some ideals deserve to be spit upon. That's why the debate.

But most common religions do not believe unbelievers should be killed.

It sounds as if Jim had his way any candidate should denounce any affiliation to a moral belief. That IMO is not what this country was based upon.

Bush, Hillary, or any politician shouldn't be afraid to say their God doesn't believe in "X".

True enough, but I also don't think they should attempt to campaign on the idea of establishing laws that enforce their personally held religious ideals as the law of the land. :shrug:

mlyonsd
06-14-2006, 09:05 PM
True enough, but I also don't think they should attempt to campaign on the idea of establishing laws that enforce their personally held religious ideals as the law of the land. :shrug:

Very fine line there depending on the religious ideals they are pursuing.

For example...all voting Americans should be Christians....bad.

All voting Americans that believe killing another human being is a sin...good.

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 09:22 PM
Very fine line there depending on the religious ideals they are pursuing.

For example...all voting Americans should be Christians....bad.

All voting Americans that believe killing another human being is a sin...good.Then you have other more difficult very fine lines, like only abstinence should be taught vs. comprehensive sex ed.

Or access to Contraceptives or "adult entertainment".

Or that an inauguration benediction, government or military ceremonies opening prayer should be given solely in the name of one specific religious figure, excluding all other "believers".

Or of course, the abortion issue.

As the Bard wrote: "Aye, there's the rub."

go bowe
06-14-2006, 09:24 PM
eh, one man's spit is another man's debate...

or is it the other way around?

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 09:27 PM
eh, one man's spit is another man's debate...

or is it the other way around?
A Rose by any other name would still be the sex organ of a thorny bush.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 09:35 PM
rose as pussy...

interesting concept...

i may have to take that under advisement...

Adept Havelock
06-14-2006, 09:57 PM
rose as pussy...

interesting concept...

i may have to take that under advisement...
Furthering your analogy...Considering it contains the pistil and stamen, what makes you think it's the female?

Perhaps I should have amended the quote to "the reproductive organ of a thorny bush" ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-14-2006, 10:28 PM
I'll keep that quote in mind for the next time I decide to get my geopolitical analysis from a Rambo movie. Thanks, man.

The sad thing is how true it's proven to be in this case. An assertion such as the thread starter shows that no form of discourse should be considered beneath it. Even pop culture has it's critical merits, however unwitting they may be.

Logical
06-14-2006, 10:54 PM
Fair opinion, I also agree some ideals deserve to be spit upon. That's why the debate.

But most common religions do not believe unbelievers should be killed.

It sounds as if Jim had his way any candidate should denounce any affiliation to a moral belief. That IMO is not what this country was based upon.

Bush, Hillary, or any politician shouldn't be afraid to say their God doesn't believe in "X".LOL not wanting a religious party and not wanting a moral candidate is equal in your mind.ROFL

go bowe
06-14-2006, 11:09 PM
Furthering your analogy...Considering it contains the pistil and stamen, what makes you think it's the female?

Perhaps I should have amended the quote to "the reproductive organ of a thorny bush" ROFLthat shows you how much i know about ****ing roses...

those thorns hurt, too...

go bowe
06-14-2006, 11:11 PM
LOL not wanting a religious party and not wanting a moral candidate is equal in your mind.ROFLwhy shure...

only religious people have morals...










i keeed, i keeed...

Radar Chief
06-15-2006, 08:02 AM
Saudia Arabia is a monarchy under theocratic law. Sharia is the law of the land, Islam is the state religion, all citizens must be Muslim, and the law is enforced by the Mutawwa'in. Thus Saudia Arabia is a theocracy.

Now, are you going to try to claim that it's not in the ME either? ROFL

Now, hurry over to the other thread Chief Faithful, teenagers are trying to have sex and only the religious nuts at the KSBOE can stop it!

Tell it to Frankie, heíll flip a lid tellín ya that ME is Arab and that Iran is Persia, Iíd therefore also assume that he wouldnít consider Afghanistan ME either.
And just FYI, but Iím pretty sure from what Iíve read that CF andíis family originate from Persia also.

Radar Chief
06-15-2006, 08:04 AM
that shows you how much i know about ****ing roses...

those thorns hurt, too...

Q: Whatís the difference between a BMW and a rose bush?
A: With a rose bush the pricks are on the outside. ;)

Radar Chief
06-15-2006, 08:38 AM
Tell it to Frankie, heíll flip a lid tellín ya that ME is Arab and that Iran is Persia, Iíd therefore also assume that he wouldnít consider Afghanistan ME either.
And just FYI, but Iím pretty sure from what Iíve read that CF andíis family originate from Persia also.

Ok, scratch that. Apparently Frankie is haveín serious health issues and doesnít need to be bothered straightenín out us DC heathens.

Chief Faithful
06-15-2006, 10:33 AM
You may not consider those ME but I would venture that 95% of all Americans do including yours truly.

You are correct the western world would include Iran in a definition of the Greater Middle East although this is only because of proximtiy and religion. Although there are no precise borders the Arabic culture and the Iranian culture are deeply devided by culture, heritage, tradition, and by thousands of years of deeply held animosity and prejudice.

While I conceed that Iran can be considered part of the "Greater" Middle East in the same way North West Africa gets lumped into the mix, Persia is not culturally connected and does not represent what will happen in the Arabic countries. As for Afghanistan there is no connection to the Middle East by any definition.

Thus, it still stands that there is no example of a Theocracy in the Arabic Middle East. There are examples of Monarchy's established through tribal agreements (Saudi, Jordan, Qatar, Oman, Yemen), Democracies (Lebanon, Isreal, Eygpt, Iraq, UAE, Gaza), Facist regimes (Syria, former Iraq), but I do not see any Theocracies.

Chief Faithful
06-15-2006, 11:03 AM
And just FYI, but Iím pretty sure from what Iíve read that CF andíis family originate from Persia also.

Ouch! You have insulted by entire family! :)

My family is Arabic Druze. While I am an American citizen I did live for a period in Baakline Lebanon and I found the deeply held prejudices to be interesting especially in how it manifests in public policy and law.

Chief Faithful
06-15-2006, 11:27 AM
I'll give and say Saudi is a Theocracy.

Here is a good article from the government on Saudi:

Saudi Government (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm)

The law is base mostly on Sunni-Wahhabi traditions and the interpretations from the Koran. Article does a good job of defining the Mutawwa'in in this way, "the Committee to Prevent Vice and Promote Virtue, whose agents commonly are known as Mutawwa'in, or religious police, was a semiautonomous agency that enforced adherence to Sunni-Wahhabi Islamic norms by monitoring public behavior." They are not authorized to carry out Judgements and cannot hold anyone for more than 24 hours although they can arrest, charge, and turn you over to the authories. Kind of like citizens police on steriods.

Radar Chief
06-15-2006, 11:45 AM
Ouch! You have insulted by entire family! :)

My family is Arabic Druze. While I am an American citizen I did live for a period in Baakline Lebanon and I found the deeply held prejudices to be interesting especially in how it manifests in public policy and law.

Sorry, certainly no insult intended.

Chief Faithful
06-15-2006, 12:23 PM
Sorry, certainly no insult intended.

I'm American born and raised so I'm not insulted and even think it funny, but it is amazing the level of hatred I saw by the Arabs toward the Persians. I don't see it as strong from Arabs and Persians that have come to this country although when I talk to a Perian in this country they do choose their words carefully until they get to know me.

go bowe
06-15-2006, 01:54 PM
Q: Whatís the difference between a BMW and a rose bush?
A: With a rose bush the pricks are on the outside. ;)damn, i wish i could remember jokes, i've heard some beauts and that's right up there with simple yet raucously funny...

yes, i'm trying to imitate baby lee and his two dollar words... :D :D :D