For those who want to see how the neo-cons mapped it all out in advance, start with their words. They wrote their own My Struggle (“Mein Kampf”) long before ‘W’ was pulled away from a life of failed business adventures and a baseball fetish.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ On Jun 16, 12:57 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
