1996 was hardly "long before ‘W’ was pulled away from a life of failed business adventures and a baseball fetish"...Neocons are just that...neo. You give them more legitimacy by implying an age beyond what they had. The Iraqi Liberation Act that Clinton signed in 1998 was directly drawn from PNAC's stated principles.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:09 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
