Ok, I do remember talk about terrorism against the citizens of Iraq and evidence was shown that Saddam had used chemical weopons on his own people and the thuggery of his rule could certainly be considered terrorism. I mean we weren't worried about him bombing our malls so much as, like you said, keeping the flow of oil secure and freeing the Iraqi people.
dj On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Don Johnson<[email protected]> wrote: > iam, about the only thing I agree with you on this post is the last > sentence. Oil was the best reason for invading. The Bush > administration felt they needed to stabilize the area so the flow of > the black stuff would keep coming. They also thought soldiers would > be greeted by the citizens throwing rose petals under their feet > entering Baghdad. Thus the whole 'liberation' theme. Ooops. > > The only people I heard crying about Bush saying the Iraq war was > about terrorism or 9/11 was Democrats. I never heard him or anyone in > the administration use that argument until well after congress agreed > to military intervention. If you have evidence otherwise I'd like to > be corrected and I'll admit I was wrong. > > Your response to my comment about Saddam's role in ignoring or > outright breaking UN rules confuses me. Yes, the US has a veto. So > do other nations and they use theirs as well. I wasn't talking about > them or us and those vetos don't break the rules they are a part of > the process. I'm talking about throwing out weapons inspectors among > other things. I can only surmise that you weren't paying attention > during these occurrences or you've been fed a lot of disinformation. > If you can prove me wrong I'll man up and admit it but until then > we'll just have to disagree on the facts. > > dj > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:52 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't understand Don >> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I see your point, Fran. I happen to agree more with SD, however. >>> >>> I have never connected the invasion of Iraq with 9/11 or radical >>> Islam. >> >> that is what the world is fighting. >> >>> I saw it as a response to Sadddam's belligerence to UN >>> resolutions >> >> and George Bush is not belligerant to UN resolutions. veto here veto there, >> Iseral the naughty step child of the US can not be held accountable >> because of this automatic veto.. >> >>> and, of course, his active pursuit of WMD's. >> >> What weapons of mass destruction? People around the world knew they didn't >> exist and it was retoric coming from the Bush administration and his cronies >> who don't count the cost of war ,, just the profit. >> >>> Right or wrong, this is why we invaded. >> >> No Iraq was invaded to satisfy Bush's ego to go down in the history books as >> a great war time president,, being a coward that abandoned his post durning >> the vietnam war and the only thing that saved his but was his daddy. >> >>> Hindsight of course tells us we should >>> have stayed out of Iraq. >> >> What i don't understand is why in the first place. There is an old saying >> that goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It was common knowledge >> Saddam and Ben Laudin hated each others guts and there is no way he was >> going to be allowed on saddam's territory and in starting the Bush/Iraq war >> they gaveBen Laudin free access to the rest of the world.. >> >> The other thing the war was over was for the Oil.. >> Allan >> >>> (or fought it more harshly to win, ala SD's >>> premise) I can't disagree with that. However, sanctions weren't >>> working(they only cause the poor to suffer more) and massive fraud at >>> the UN and in countries all over the world with the Oil for Food >>> debacle negated any effect they might have had. No one knows what >>> would have happened if we hadn't invaded but I suspect it would have >>> led to another war between Iraq and Iran. Good for us, really bad for >>> the both of them. As it is, we've enabled Iran's recent success. >>> Their economy is in the shitter(just like the rest of us) but, as you >>> pointed out, patriotism is quite high. Citizens like a belligerent >>> cowboy as a leader, even if he is just a figure head in this case. >>> *my God, did I just compare I'mADinnerJacket to Reagan?-somebody slap >>> me!* >>> >>> I don't see a resolution to the 'War on Terror' ever. I'd rather >>> fight them then pay them off like Saudi Arabia. Turning the other >>> cheek I also have a problem with. It tends to get bitten off. Like I >>> said earlier, if it was easy we'd of fixed it already. >>> >>> dj >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, frantheman<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > To use military language, the current position in what Bush called the >>> > "War on Terror" (more correctly, the war on radical Islam) is SNAFU, >>> > or Charlie Foxtrot. It didn't have to be that way; in the aftermath of >>> > 9/11 there was overwhelming international support for the US, general >>> > agreement that the Taliban (who offered succour and support to bin >>> > Ladin and Al Khaida) had to be removed, a subsequent UN resolution and >>> > a broadly-backed invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq and the >>> > conflation of both conflicts blew all that and fatally poisoned the >>> > whole issue. Saddam Hussein was many things, but never an Islamicist. >>> > >>> > Justin is right all the way on this. The pursual of the so-called "War >>> > on Terror" contains so many contradictions that it is acting as a >>> > first-class recruiting sergeant for radical Islamicism - Gitmo is only >>> > one instance of this. The results are becoming daily more apparent in >>> > Afpakhistan. The real battle, that for hearts and minds, is being lost >>> > (and "getting them by the balls" isn't going to change this). The high >>> > moral ground resulting from 9/11 has been lost - probably irrevocably. >>> > Watching the "development" of Obama's position since his inauguration >>> > makes me suspect that various military arguments are succeeding in >>> > scaring him off truly courageous strategies which might offer some >>> > hope of actually doing something about the situation. >>> > >>> > As much as I abhor radical Islamicism and all that it stands for, >>> > dehumanising its adherents and active agents is not going to solve the >>> > problems. Leaving aside the question as to whether he actually won the >>> > election, it remains undeniable that millions of Iranians freely and >>> > enthusiastically voted for Ahmadinejad. As a first step to actually >>> > understanding some of the motivations of these people (and they are >>> > people, not just crazed fanatics), I would recommend watching Abu- >>> > Assad's "Paradise Now." >>> > >>> > In the end, Justin's position can be defined by the saying; "Love your >>> > enemy, it will drive him crazy!" Trying it would be novel, and it >>> > might just achieve something. However, I have to say that I'm not >>> > holding my breath. >>> > >>> > Francis >>> > >>> > On 15 Jun., 12:21, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> The answer is simple. We do not kill them because it will negatively >>> >> affect our efforts on the battlefield to achieve superiority. It >>> >> motivates the enemy, hardens and destroys our own morale, and all for >>> >> no strategic purpose. Ultimately, it is a political objective that we >>> >> are trying to reach. Moving it farther out of our hands make no sense. >>> >> >>> >> On Jun 14, 11:14 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > I think you are losing the context of the thread. Perhaps lining >>> >> > them >>> >> > up for a firing squad veers the thread intent off track. I thought >>> >> > there would be a psychological discussion but instead it is turning >>> >> > out to be everything else but. >>> >> >>> >> > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the >>> >> > "innocent >>> >> > bystander" are co-located. <JT >>> >> >>> >> > Sure they are, no kidding? I'm not suggesting now nor did I suggest >>> >> > at any time that we bomb the whole place, killing innocent people in >>> >> > the process. My only suggestion was that we just eliminate the enemy >>> >> > combatants during ground wars of any kind. >>> >> > The context of the thread is pertaining to all wars, any wars, >>> >> > fighting over anything. Like the civil war! >>> >> > Again!! >>> >> > There is a change that takes place. Soldier A is shooting at >>> >> > soldier >>> >> > B with all the intention of killing him. Soldier B for whatever >>> >> > reason gets caught by soldier A. Soldier B, who killed several of >>> >> > soldier A's friends and claims he will kill more if given the >>> >> > opportunity, is taken by soldier A and treated very well. Why? >>> >> >>> >> > SO!! I am simply saying that If I were soldier A, I would just kill >>> >> > soldier B (the enemy) instead of wasting my time catering to his >>> >> > needs. >>> >> >>> >> > If we are going to kill then lets kill otherwise let's put out a huge >>> >> > picnic table and have Soldiers A and Soldiers B sit down and treat >>> >> > each other nicely while they eat!! >>> >> >>> >> > On Jun 14, 12:25 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > > You seem to have no awareness of the context of what is happening. >>> >> > > You >>> >> > > seem not to see the context at all. >>> >> >>> >> > > First, the term "war". If we are in a war then we are in a severely >>> >> > > asymetrical one. There is no government that has "declared" war on >>> >> > > us >>> >> > > in this thing. Nor is there a society, working together in an >>> >> > > organized manner behind a defended perimeter. >>> >> >>> >> > > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the >>> >> > > "innocent >>> >> > > bystander" are co-located. >>> >> >>> >> > > What is the technical objective of a terrorist strike? What was >>> >> > > Osama >>> >> > > bin Laden's objective for 9/11? Do you think he was "trying to >>> >> > > destroy >>> >> > > us"? No he was not. If he was trying to destroy us he needed a >>> >> > > significant increment in the tonnage of his explosives. Don't you >>> >> > > not >>> >> > > realize that he KNEW that 9/11 would not destroy us and that the >>> >> > > function of the mission was to draw us into the kind of conflict >>> >> > > that >>> >> > > the Russians got into so that he could use the same techniques on >>> >> > > us >>> >> > > as he did on them and then DISCREDIT us. Not DESTROY us. DISCREDIT >>> >> > > us. >>> >> > > If he can de-ligitamize our actions and our society then he can >>> >> > > legitemize his own struggle and through that process gain the >>> >> > > political strength that he would need to actually destroy us. When >>> >> > > that happens his ideas win. Preventing his ideas from taking hold >>> >> > > is >>> >> > > the whole enchilada. >>> >> >>> >> > > Your idea of "just killing" those in Guatanamo is wrong on several >>> >> > > levels not the least of which is strategic. You would play right >>> >> > > into >>> >> > > their hands. At the beginning of the war that eliminated the >>> >> > > Taliban >>> >> > > we had the opportunity to reconfigure the entire political dialogue >>> >> > > on >>> >> > > which international relations is based. We should have seen our >>> >> > > primary objective as the need to de-legitimize that kind of action >>> >> > > and >>> >> > > those kind of people and kept our hands "extra" clean taking >>> >> > > extraordinary measures to prevent casualties among the innocent and >>> >> > > drawing a clear distinction between "us" those that would not use >>> >> > > those techniques and "them" those that do. The political fallout >>> >> > > would >>> >> > > have been the collapse of Jihadist movement. (I am not saying that >>> >> > > we >>> >> > > should not have disarmed the Taliban- so don't strawman me.) >>> >> >>> >> > > I suspect that the number of children, not just innocents, but >>> >> > > innocent children, that we have "slaughtered" or "maimed" -words >>> >> > > that >>> >> > > take thinking about to realize their meaning - is now greater than >>> >> > > we >>> >> > > lost in NYC. And still we have the - well I am sorry to use the >>> >> > > word >>> >> > > but I must - imbecilic - ideas like you are proposing floating >>> >> > > around. >>> >> >>> >> > > The real tragedy of the Obama victory was that it was so close and >>> >> > > so >>> >> > > many of you just have no clue strategically. You have witnessed and >>> >> > > are witnessing the collapse of American power which would not be a >>> >> > > problem except that we "were" the "best hope" of taking the world >>> >> > > into >>> >> > > a happy future. Ah well, perhaps we should just wait for the >>> >> > > Chinese >>> >> > > to rise to the occasion and lead us there. >>> >> >>> >> > > Where is your common sense man? >>> >> >>> >> > > On Jun 14, 11:36 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > > > OK so we've covered some definitions and perspectives and maybe >>> >> > > > even >>> >> > > > had a few drinks. Now! >>> >> > > > Can we figure out why we straddle the fence between wanton >>> >> > > > killing and >>> >> > > > humanitarian treatment in times of war? Do we feel guilty? >>> >> > > > Are we >>> >> > > > trying to say that we're not all that bad? Why do we care? >>> >> >>> >> > > > In the movie Saving Private Ryan, Capt. Millers interpreter, >>> >> > > > Cpl. >>> >> > > > Upham intervenes in a desire to shoot a captured German. >>> >> > > > Eventually >>> >> > > > after much arguing they let the soldier go. Later, in another >>> >> > > > scene >>> >> > > > that same soldier, rejoined with his regiment, gains access to >>> >> > > > building and kills one of the men that wanted to kill him >>> >> > > > earlier. >>> >> >>> >> > > > I guess initially the German enemy was set free because he was >>> >> > > > captured and was now unarmed and they just couldn't kill him in >>> >> > > > cold >>> >> > > > blood. How many enemies did that soldier kill since they let him >>> >> > > > go? >>> >> > > > I don't get it. Is there that much confusion in war objective? >>> >> > > > I >>> >> > > > guess it is somewhat like the death penalty issue where opponents >>> >> > > > would rather we preserve the lives of those that want to kill us. >>> >> >>> >> > > > Was the German soldier no longer an enemy just because he was >>> >> > > > unarmed? Isn't being an enemy a state of mind? Won't all >>> >> > > > those >>> >> > > > released return to attack when their numbers have reorganized and >>> >> > > > reached the point of becoming a formidable enemy? >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ( >> ) >> I_D Allan >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
