FridgeMagnet
Administrator
As I said before; who makes the goals?
Soldier's mother Cindy Sheehan in Bush protest
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
FridgeMagnet said:
Its a perecentage set by the military based on their expirance and their future needs witch in this case is about 30,000 more people than last year.
But its the same percentage for all units.
Clearly the combat units are exceding it.
So the others must not be.
FridgeMagnet said:
Its not odd, they belive in the mission, and feel they are making a difference in iraq.
Whats odd, is that they press, doesn't cover this like they should.
I read it in my local paper i belive.
SEveral times, but its a hot topic in a military town. - Were 40% are in the service and 40% more are retired from the service.
The war in Iraq was declared despite the lack of a clear mandate by the security council, in other words an invasion with no legal precedent.
It was justified by a sucession of lies.
This Baathist thug myth is another lie. It's a war zone, right? What always happens in one of those? History (not propoganda) tells us that in warfare groups of bullies always appear, taking advantage of the power vacuum.
It's a side effect of war.
These thugs exist because US, UK and allies invaded the country with no clear mandate. They are a side effect of the invasion, not a reason for it. Without proper consensus within that nation's politics, then the vacuum exists that offers the space for such bullies to thrive in. The current situation makes it easy for criminals (kidnapping, anyone?) and gangsters to take local power. The lack of electricity, jobs, medication, security, water, and so on also weakens the population's attempts to oppose those bullies.
The usual reaction here is to say something like: "so you'd be happy to see an evil dictator like Saddam continue to oppress his population?"
The answer here is "no". But consider, if he had not had in his possession US chemical warfare agents and expertise (see above) he would have been a lesser danger to the Iraqi people. Despite that, as far as Iraqi's are concerned, he was at least an Iraqi.
Right now the country is under occupation, and want the troops to leave, so they can get on with doing something about it all.
There will be a lot more bloodshed.
But, as the occupation forces don't count civilian deaths, then such deaths evidently mean nothing to the occupying powers. So the inevitable collapse into civil war in Iraq means nothing to them.
These Baathist bullies are a side-effect of an invasion which needn't have happened in the first place, had no UN support, and so on.
They are not a justification for going to war, but a mess created by it, and the responsibility for creating harmony in Iraq rests with the powers, particularly the US, which created the situation in the first place.
So build water systems, electricity supplies and homes, and win the peace.
Without peace there is always war. Without peace there is no clear victory.
In Iraq, there have been no winners.
It's a complete disaster.
I'd really like it if everyone on this thread would consider a four year old boy - perhaps your boy, or a friend's boy - and imagine them in hospital with their legs blown off by a cluster bomb. And then ask yourselves if that can be justified? After 5,000 years of civilization, is there any excuse for such barbarism in civilization's cradle?
It was justified by a sucession of lies.
This Baathist thug myth is another lie. It's a war zone, right? What always happens in one of those? History (not propoganda) tells us that in warfare groups of bullies always appear, taking advantage of the power vacuum.
It's a side effect of war.
These thugs exist because US, UK and allies invaded the country with no clear mandate. They are a side effect of the invasion, not a reason for it. Without proper consensus within that nation's politics, then the vacuum exists that offers the space for such bullies to thrive in. The current situation makes it easy for criminals (kidnapping, anyone?) and gangsters to take local power. The lack of electricity, jobs, medication, security, water, and so on also weakens the population's attempts to oppose those bullies.
The usual reaction here is to say something like: "so you'd be happy to see an evil dictator like Saddam continue to oppress his population?"
The answer here is "no". But consider, if he had not had in his possession US chemical warfare agents and expertise (see above) he would have been a lesser danger to the Iraqi people. Despite that, as far as Iraqi's are concerned, he was at least an Iraqi.
Right now the country is under occupation, and want the troops to leave, so they can get on with doing something about it all.
There will be a lot more bloodshed.
But, as the occupation forces don't count civilian deaths, then such deaths evidently mean nothing to the occupying powers. So the inevitable collapse into civil war in Iraq means nothing to them.
These Baathist bullies are a side-effect of an invasion which needn't have happened in the first place, had no UN support, and so on.
They are not a justification for going to war, but a mess created by it, and the responsibility for creating harmony in Iraq rests with the powers, particularly the US, which created the situation in the first place.
So build water systems, electricity supplies and homes, and win the peace.
Without peace there is always war. Without peace there is no clear victory.
In Iraq, there have been no winners.
It's a complete disaster.
I'd really like it if everyone on this thread would consider a four year old boy - perhaps your boy, or a friend's boy - and imagine them in hospital with their legs blown off by a cluster bomb. And then ask yourselves if that can be justified? After 5,000 years of civilization, is there any excuse for such barbarism in civilization's cradle?
pbman said:
Classic sophistry. When faced with a superior argument, the classic technique is to make a comparison. Bosnia is not part of this discussion. The two conflicts, and the reasons for them are hugely different. The comparison is simply designed to belittle the argument, and is not based on anything except knee-jerk reaction. The argument holds no water.
This is then followed by a second attempt to belittle the discussion. "You guys crack me up..", with a third clear attempt hidden within the second. This being the reference "normaly you don't like rich murderig a-holes."
There are two attempts within that statement to belittle and reject what has been said.
1/ "You" the reference here to "you" suggests an attempt to lump everyone with an objection to the Iraq war within one category. This is a category you have in your mind for people you ignore. It's based on a principle that is itself anti-democratic, because it implies anyone with views different from yours is someone you ignore.
2/ "...don't like rich murderig a-holes:. The attempt here is to define the Iraqi people as the rich murderers. Some are, probably, but no one is richer than the US businessmen currently profiting from the US war machine. And those people aren't even in the front line.
I'm not particularly convinced by your arguments here.
rocketman said:
You said it was unprecedented.
And clearly bosnia set the precedent that nations don't need the securitiy councils aproval. You were talking out of your ass and i called you on it.
In any event, the majority of european countries suported us on iraq, so were not exatly alone here.
That is correct i found it redicules and i still do.
Of course not.
I've posted a long long list of terroist orginizations and links to al qudea before, no one give as shit about that either.
Your like little kids who don't give a shit about anything or anyone but your selves, and apposing the war makes you feel good about yourselves. And i can say that after argueing this topic here before during and after the war.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
But pbman, none of that matters. You are *losing* the war due to the unbelievable stupidity of your leaders. Rumsfeld spent the entire first year of the occupation with his head in a bag believing his own propaganda and now you're fucked. You're looking around for some "liberals" to blame, but you know in your heart of hearts, that your imbecilic leaders fucked it up utterly.
Bernie Gunther said:
How the f--- would you know whats going on.
The fact is were winning.
Yoru the same guys who cried that tet was a major loss for us in 68, when it was a major victory..........
If we made any mistakes it was not killing the murdering bathist a-hole, in the battle for iraq. If you remmber back, we cut off all/most of the republican guards and spicel republican guard units, and took away their ability to manuver on the battle field, so they all went home instead of dieing.........
It would be like germany after ww2 with all the nazi's still alive.
But i doubt we make that mistake again.
For those of you who don't know this was saddams eqivilant of the SS.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/srg/
But i do blelive the Hitlers SS were nicer people, at least in terms of how they treated the people in their own country.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
The difficulty is though, while an impenetrable bone-headed stubborn refusal to face facts that are staring you in the face, may be serviceable in US domestic politics, it has a significant downside when it comes to dealing with the real world.
In the case of pbman, it just makes him look like a gullible fool. In the case of say Donald Rumfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or any of that crowd, it's a major part of how they let Iraq get into such a disgraceful mess.
No arguments in favour of invading Iraq, no matter how cogent they are claimed to be by die-hard supporters, have any force when the results of US policy are so obviously a complete screw-up and when the leadership that the neo-cons have shown is so ludicrously incompetent and bone-headed.
That's why they have to smear Cindy Sheehan. They have no better arguments.
They have cut the ground from under any rational arguments they may have, by making a far worse mess of Iraq in terms of the overall danger to the Iraqi people and their neighbours than there was before they started. What's more, there is absolutely no evidence that they have any idea at all what to do about stopping things in Iraq and things happening as a result of Iraq from getting far worse.
In the case of pbman, it just makes him look like a gullible fool. In the case of say Donald Rumfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or any of that crowd, it's a major part of how they let Iraq get into such a disgraceful mess.
No arguments in favour of invading Iraq, no matter how cogent they are claimed to be by die-hard supporters, have any force when the results of US policy are so obviously a complete screw-up and when the leadership that the neo-cons have shown is so ludicrously incompetent and bone-headed.
That's why they have to smear Cindy Sheehan. They have no better arguments.
They have cut the ground from under any rational arguments they may have, by making a far worse mess of Iraq in terms of the overall danger to the Iraqi people and their neighbours than there was before they started. What's more, there is absolutely no evidence that they have any idea at all what to do about stopping things in Iraq and things happening as a result of Iraq from getting far worse.
Continuing with your mixture of lies and irrelevance then pb?
That chart refers to weapons. It does not include components used to make, er, chemical weapons for example.
There were no WMDs.
No links to Al-Q (even Blair wouldn't use your bullshit examples).
No rational threat to other nations.
Poor military planning.
Your govt have screwed up and still have no real idea how to get out. Can you not concede that, at least in some instances, anti-war arguments were correct? Are you big enough?
That chart refers to weapons. It does not include components used to make, er, chemical weapons for example.
There were no WMDs.
No links to Al-Q (even Blair wouldn't use your bullshit examples).
No rational threat to other nations.
Poor military planning.
Your govt have screwed up and still have no real idea how to get out. Can you not concede that, at least in some instances, anti-war arguments were correct? Are you big enough?
winterinmoscow
Returning Poster
That seems a really interesting comment because that's pretty much what I'd say about your rulers. Considering that most of us are abit worried about the effect such aggresive foreign policies have on the rest of the world, I'd say we've got more of an eye on the bigger picture.
Perhaps yes, on a cynical level. But I'm not sure I see your point,
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
That will be the Nazis the US spirited out of Europe and into the Republican Party, NASA and a variety of locations in Central and South America - yes?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
pbman said:
Riiightt.
I'm not surprised at your holding such an insane opinion, though.
After all, I'm sure you read all the books your mate Diesel gave you after you became one of his bitches.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte said:That will be the Nazis the US spirited out of Europe and into the Republican Party, NASA and a variety of locations in Central and South America - yes?
Surely you can't be referring to "Operation Paperclip", the CIA operation that gave freedom to such scum as Klaus Barbie (among several tens of thousands of others) in return for them furthering the US's intelligence interests?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
"Paperclip" was the project to disinfect and coopt Nazi technical experts, like Von Braun (tricky 'cos the Brits had him and Churchill wanted to hang the bugger), (major war criminal and Saturn 5 project engineer) Arthur Rudolph and that guy who ended up in charge of Reagan's Star Wars programme.
The programme under which they imported all the military and paramiliary sorts of war criminals was called "Bloodstone" and signed off a year or so later according to the stuff that came out under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure's act.
Good summary to be found just here
The programme under which they imported all the military and paramiliary sorts of war criminals was called "Bloodstone" and signed off a year or so later according to the stuff that came out under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure's act.
Good summary to be found just here
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think the CIA use of people like Barbie and a long list of other monsters was a separate thing, not directly under the auspicies of either programme and more of a hands-off sort of thing. Pretty embarassing to have someone that Eichman called "One of my best men" working for you in any official capacity.
pbman said:
The evolution of right-wing doublespeak continues.
Yet again here you fail to address any issues, simply responding in a way that moves the argument without adding anything to it.
It doesn't matter how many countries supported the invasion in the first place, it still went against the will of the security council, and the justifications used to convince the other countries were all proved to be lies. In other words, US credibility was sacrificed solely in order to justify an illegal invasion of another country.
The personal "talking out your ass" accusation I take personally. I'm offended by that, and don't come here to get that kind of response, and think people like you who say such things should be excluded.
Bosnia did not set such a precedent. The humanitarian reasons for that intervention where eventually accepted. This invasion will not be. You are a right wing historical revisionist engaged in a program of black propaganda, possibly under orders, I come across a lot of this on a lot of boards. I think there is a misinformation campaign by you and yours, a small but sadly ruling minority.
I think you like killing. And you aren't capable of "turning the other cheek", or of choosing the hard path to peace rather than the costly but easy path to war.
As I said already, I "give a shit" about the people in Iraq, whether soldier or citizen. I regret the conflict there.
And you are in no position to accuse us of only caring about ourselves, when the people you argue in favour of only count military casualties, not the Iraqis, in other words, you and yours care only for yourselves.
How can the world ever enjoy peace, unless people find ways to make beliefs less polarised.
You and I aren't on different sides of the fence - how could we be, since you keep moving it?
I think you and your arguments are a threat to world peace, just as much as that posed by any terrorist.
Don't you terrorists realise you are all being played by the elites on both sides that are running all of this?
War is stupid.
Are you?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
ViolentPanda said:Surely you can't be referring to "Operation Paperclip", the CIA operation that gave freedom to such scum as Klaus Barbie (among several tens of thousands of others) in return for them furthering the US's intelligence interests?
The very same.
What say a few of us chip in to buy somebody a present?
This little beauty's called the "patriotboy" and the hood is just perfect for enhancing that "blinkered" worldview so beloved by a few posters who keep coming back for a drubbin' at u75.
This is what the logo says close up
And it's the idea of these folks who have some real good ideas about makin' progress in Iraq.
This little beauty's called the "patriotboy" and the hood is just perfect for enhancing that "blinkered" worldview so beloved by a few posters who keep coming back for a drubbin' at u75.
This is what the logo says close up
And it's the idea of these folks who have some real good ideas about makin' progress in Iraq.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I won't quibble with you about which organisational umbrella the "capture" and deployment of Nazi (please note I don't say "former" NaziBernie Gunther said:
) personnel came under, because whichever arm of the American state paid their expenses, the result is the same: The criminal use of wanted and/or convicted criminals as "hired labour".Of course, this is something that most European nations were guilty of as well, and the excuses for doing so were much the same.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Didn't mean to quibbleViolentPanda said:I won't quibble with you about which organisational umbrella the "capture" and deployment of Nazi (please note I don't say "former" Nazi
Of course, this is something that most European nations were guilty of as well, and the excuses for doing so were much the same.
Did you know a bunch of those old Nazis turned up again in the 1980's on Bush senior's campaign.
Old NYT article about it is archived here
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Bernie Gunther said:Didn't mean to quibble
Did you know a bunch of those old Nazis turned up again in the 1980's on Bush senior's campaign.
Old NYT article about it is archived here
Interesting. I'd read a few "incidental" mentions about the connections in (IIRC) "Lobster", and some mainstream works on the post-war right such as Lee's "The Beast Reawakens" mention (with a little detail) specific cases of connections between political elites in the US and Europe and the WW2-vintage extreme right (Skorzeny, Remer etc).
I suppose if the US establishment was happy to use the post-war remnants of the fascists to "police" Europe as part of it's operations to "keep out communism" (Gladio and it's offshoots), then one shouldn't be surprised at the GOP not seeing anything wrong with employing former(?) fascists in it's political structure.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think it's symptomatic of a wider problem. The employment of people with a counter-insurgency background of whatever provenance in government. If you've spent your life studying how to repress subject populations while maintaining an illusion of democracy in the developing world, using a body of technque to which Nazis have been generous contributors, then the temptation to apply those techniques in domestic politics comes along with those kinds of personnel getting involved in domestic politics.ViolentPanda said:
Similar threads
