Chris Matthews: Defeat Means Troops Still in Iraq--What About WWII?


NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterDid you know that the US is still at war with Korea, Germany, Japan, Bosnia and Kosovo? Based on “Hardball” host Chris Matthews' recent claims, we are still at war with those countries and will be until our troops leave their soil. (h/t Weasel Zippers)

On his November 28 show (transcript here), MSNBC's Matthews discussed Iraq with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, wondering when “will we be able to come home.” In the process, the former Carter speechwriter said, “If we can't ever come home, we can't ever say we won.”

Silly me, I thought WWII, the Korean War, the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War were over. I guess the US troops still stationed in those countries prove otherwise (bold mine throughout):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

...But my definition of a defeat is you can‘t leave. If we can‘t leave that country in the foreseeable future, we are losing. The purpose of the American Army is to get home and be ready to defend this country against possible threats to this country.

As long as we‘re stuck over there, it seems we‘re losing. When will we be able to come home from Iraq, based upon all this popular good news here?

(...)

MATTHEWS: Because if we can‘t ever come home, we can‘t ever say we won.

I understand what Matthews is trying to say, but it isn't that cut and dry. For many reasons, the winning side frequently retains troops in the country where the war was waged—rebuilding, maintaining order, training the defeated and ensuring that others do not invade. Iraq wouldn't be the first country where military forces remain in country after the war is over. Surely Matthews knows that.

I wager that Matthews “definition of defeat” is a little different than most military historians'. Requiring American troops to leave the battleground country to declare a victory would mean that we didn't win WWII. We still have troops in Germany and Okinawa.

Now, obviously, he didn't mean that WWII isn't over, but it's fun to apply his claims about the Iraq War to other conflicts.

Parsing words, he could have meant the type of situation where US troops “can't leave” a country because they are keeping a more active peace, such as the ones on the DMZ in South Korea. That is a little different from troops remaining in a country for strategic reasons, such as those stationed at bases in Europe.

Even going by the more narrow interpretation, according to Matthews' new definition, we are still at war with North Korea, Bosnia and Kosovo.

If a conservative had said this, fellow MSNBCer Keith Olbermann would make him or her the “Worst Person in the World” for changing all of those WWII vets from winners into losers. If Olbermann can tear himself away from the self-tanner, I'm sure he'll get right on it.

 

Lynn contributes to NewsBusters and can be reached at tvisgoodforyou2 AT yahoo DOT com


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When they coined the phrase

When they coined the phrase "s*** for brains" they had Chrissy in mind.

also look in the dictionary

also look in the dictionary under "astoundingly desperate for vindication - hopefully he'll win an oscar:)"

I guess we don't need

I guess we don't need police in this country either.  I guess there were not 17000 murders and non-negligent homicides in the US in 2006. 

We have lost.  We must admit the criminals have won.

 

http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/

The US is an occupation army

and is hated by the majority of Iraqis. They US wants a subservient "quisling" government and has absolutely no interest in Iraqis if the historical record is reviewed. It's in the best interests of all nations, especially the US, to leave quickly. This is NOT DEFEAT, this is SMART POLICY!

pt... You need to stay in

pt...

You need to stay in your sandbox and quit acting like you know something about the real world...it gets old.

bt, if you have any real evidence to the contrary

please present it. My post at 'newshounds' under progressive pat should be read before you make final judgments. It's the third or fourth blog from the top with about 150+ comments. There's an ex viet vet named woke who blogs there whose opinions are perhaps even stronger than mine. he's also seen war up close and personal and offers a different view. I recommend this blog if you want real info.

pt... I have seen your

pt...

I have seen your posts before about your blog site...

Got an idea...go play there for awhile...you are always here, how come?

LOL!

this guy needs to talk to

this guy needs to talk to native Americans - we're still occupying America too - and the natives don't exactly celebrate our presence here, either - although the casino visits are nice:)

I want to correct a mistake

According to this poll:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

53% of Iraqis want the US to stay UNTIL SECURITY IMPROVES.

 

A majority of Iraqis believe the surge has failed.

and what about native

and what about native Americans? when do they want us out?

Wait until the rest of the

Wait until the rest of the returning Iraqis come back.  Then do another poll.  I bet they feel different.

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

Flawed Poll

See my post below-that BBC "poll" was flawed, as it oversampled certain groups to achieve a predetermined result. The BBC's own higher-ups have admitted their liberal bias recently, so they can't be taken seriously as an objective news source any longer.

Besides, if one single poll made everything fact, we wouldn't have numerous pollsters from different firms running around.

regarding the BBC poll, please cite your evidence

showing they 'admitted a liberal bias."

How Many Cites Do You Need?

I didn't say the Beeb admitted the poll had a bias, BTW

Here are just a few excerpts, with the links below

1. "It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'"

http://www.dailymail...

2. The Beeb's own report, 81 pages long:

http://news.bbc.co.u...

3. From Israel:

"An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside

A truly shocking revelation to come out of the summit was expected to invoke a storm in Britain, which has already reached the boiling point with regards to the treatment of Muslims and the issue of the veil.

For the purpose of illustration, the executives were given a scenario in which Jewish Comedian Sasha Baron Cohen would participate in a program titled ‘Room 101’, a studio program where guests would be asked for their opinions on different issues, and allowed to symbolically throw things they hated in a garbage bin.

The executives were asked what they would do if Cohen decided to throw ‘Kosher food’, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible, and the Quran in the garbage bin.

The executives said they would allow everything to be thrown in the garbage bin, save the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community."

http://www.ynetnews....

4. Confessions of a former BBC employee

"We saw ourselves as part of the intellectual elite, full of ideas about how the country should be run. Being naive in the way institutions actually work, we were convinced that Britain’s problems were the result of the stupidity of the people in charge of the country.

This ignorance of the realities of government and management enabled us to occupy the moral high ground. We saw ourselves as clever people in a stupid world, upright people in a corrupt world, compassionate people in a brutal world, libertarian people in an authoritarian world.

We were not Marxists but accepted a lot of Marxist social analysis. We also had an almost complete ignorance of market economics. That ignorance is still there. Say “Tesco” to a media liberal and the patellar reflex says, “Exploiting African farmers and driving out small shopkeepers.” The achievement of providing the range of goods, the competitive prices, the food quality, the speed of service and the ease of parking that attract millions of shoppers does not register on their radar."

http://www.timesonli...

5. From "This is London":

"Even one of the BBC's most senior journalists, political pundit Andrew Marr admitted that the corporation was unrepresentative of British society.

He said: "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

"It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

The BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused his own employers of being anti-American saying they treated it with scorn and derision and "no moral weight".

He revealed that he had got deputy director general Mark Byford to secretly help him to "correct" it in his reports.

Business presenter Jeff Randall said he complained to a senior executive at the BBC about the corporation's pro-multiculturalism stance.

He claimed he was told: "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism, it believes in it and it promotes it."

http://www.thisislon...

6. And since they say a picture's worth a thousand words, here's youtube:

http://www.youtube.c...

you have given some powerful evidence for

liberal bias of the BBC. It really doesn't change the SUBSTANCE of my claim. The Iraqis don't want us in their country. I gave a hypothetical example of a foreign occupation of the US by a foreign power as areasonable case for why the Iraqis want us out. I provided a link to a number of polls in the US that generally state that most Americans feel Bush has done a poor job on the Iraq war.

Anytime they want us to

Anytime they want us to leave all the government has to do is ask us to leave, so far this has not happened.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Iraq asks the US to stay

Try this from the Chicago Tribune, 27 Nov 2007. Shiite parliament member Haidar Abadi, who serves as an adviser to al-Maliki and belongs to the prime minister's Dawa Party, said Iraq envisions a need for the U.S. military to stay longer than the end of 2008.

Really, now -- even a Professor can find this stuff, dontcha think?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

the quisling government in Iraq wants the occupation.

And the French vichy government wanted the Nazi occupation.

The people of Iraq hate the occupation and want us out. Polls say most Americans want us out. 

By the way two questions: who were the invaders and occupiers in WWII? Who were the invaders and occupiers in Gulf WarII?

Don't be so stupid

You asked. I answered. Stop being stupid and argumentative.
Your attitude and downright rudeness provides no incentive to communicate with you. I've seen your endless posts, and they are so tiring. You really don't contribute anything useful to this site, do you? Except, perhaps, to provide a clearer picture of how a juvenile mind actually works inside of an adult. It's not a pretty sight. And it's not even amusing.

In the future, if you ask for an answer, be a little more gracious and stick to the topic. And don't expect me to help at all. That's not why I'm here. Maybe others want to engage in your pettyness, but it simply isn't worth my time. When you start adding value, in the future, then maybe. But not now.

 ___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

PT

As for totally wasteful polls of what Americans (so many that have been deluded by the MSM) think/feel of Bush's job on Iraq, or whatever other non-domestic issue...... may I ask, who G.A.F.F. ???? ("gives a flying f-") :p

First you're telling us of your "assumption", based on no poll done there, that Iraqis don't want us in their country... and then you completely go off course to polling in America, like that has anything to do with the minds of Iraqi people - ??

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

To The Contrary

By proving the BBC's liberal bias-by their own admission-is also proving that the "poll" they conducted in Iraq was suspect, especially since it's only ONE poll. We'll talk when you can provide multiple polls of Iraqis saying the same thing this one single poll said.

As for US polling, that's what's known as "changing the subject".

By the way, here's some historical persepctive on the BBC for you. I was a daily consumer of the BBC World Service on shortwave radio from 1963 til about 2000, when they turned off most of their shortwave transmitters in this part of the world. I have since become a daily consumer of BBC World Service as delivered by XM satellite radio.

Over the first 30 years I listened, the Beeb's News Division was among the finest anywhere as far as professionalism and integrity were concerned. That all suddenly changed about the time Tony Blair came to power (which was close to the same time Bill Clinton came into power here in the US). At about this time, the BBC entered into a news partnership with the liberal NPR here in the states. It's been downhill ever since.

It even got so bad at one point a few years ago that some British Navy ships turned the BBC off altogether, and got their news from other sources.

I agree with you on the liberal bias of the BBC.

It has almost no significance to my MAIN point, which you keep dancing around(implying you have nothing to refute it) and that MAIN point is that we have F**^ED the Iraqis in the past and we continue to F*^^ them today. I've cited numerous examples, and anyone can easily find them. Stop dancing around the fact that we aided and abetted a murderous dictator. We F*^^ the iraqis and we are F*^*^ing them now. OUr IRAQ policy has absolutely NOTHING to do with any morality. It's about our interests.

Sorry, Try Again

You alleged that the Iraqis hate us and want us to leave their country. All I'm asking is for some evidence. Is that too much to ask?

The evidence is common sense

Ask yourself, would you like to be occupied by the Chinese army, assuming the results in theUS were like the results in Iraq? Common sense tells me most people do not want a foreign occupation army.

Let's try this scenario. In

Let's try this scenario. In the future, the Iraqi people have a safe, prosperous and free society with a strong and capable army, thanks in no small part to the brave and patient Americans who helped them achieve this. Also, in this future, the nazis/socialists/communists in America have disarmed the populace and enslaved them with their tax-and-spend wealth re-distribution policies. Patriots, true to the Constitution, are being slaughtered in their weapons-less struggle to return their nation to greatness. Then yes, I would welcome the Iraqi army with open arms to aid in driving the enslavers from power and re-establishing our Constitution. They would be welcome to stay as long as it took to accomplish this goal. Afterall, they would have owed us one.

 

p.s. My ancestors will be cheering when the Iraqis pull down the statue of the nazi/socialist/communist enslavers' god.

When have the Iraqis had a safe, prosperous and

free society as a result of US actions?  The US policy allied itself with Saddam in the 80's and continued to aid him even after he gassed his own people. US policy also fomented a war between Iran and Iraq, resulting in a million or more casualties.  US approved sanctions in the 90's under Clinton resulted in over half a million deaths. Madeline Albright, Clinton's sec. of state stated on 60 minutes that the price was worth it. The 2002-2007 invasion occupation has resulted in over a million deaths and 4+million refugees. If you think things are better in Baghdad, this article tells another story:

http://www.commondre...

Reading comprehension

Reading comprehension problem? Re-read my second sentance. Pay close attention to the "in the future" part, then go ahead and repost.

You assert a future prosperous Iraq

and I answered that the historical record shows the opposite outcome when US foreign policy has intervened in Iraq. There's no comprehension problem! You asserted a future scenario that has NEVER been demonstrated! US foreign policy in tervention in Iraq has ALWAYS resulted in increased misery, suffering and death according to the historical record.

You are correct. I do

You are correct. I do assert a future prosperous Iraq, but only if we stay this time and help them complete their liberation and re-building. I assert a future scenario that HAS been demonstrated; Germany and Japan to name two.

Historical records would require you abandon your collectivist ways before it's too late.

Sorry PT

Sorry PT, you’ve got one glaring typo that I can’t ignore.  You typed “US” approved sanctions, I think you meant to type “UN” approved sanctions.  No biggie, easy mistake.

"Common sense tells me most

"Common sense tells me most people do not want a foreign occupation army."

But professor, sometimes Common sense also tells us that some people need a foreign occupation army! Which is exactly why we are still there!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

So the decision as to what's best for the country's future

should be determined by the occupation army? So, if we were invaded and occupied by a Chinese army, the decision on when the occupation should end should be left up to the Chinese, and not US citizens? Let's take another example? If Bush declared martial law as a result of a terror threat, is it up to Bush to determine when the martial law can be lifted? Let's assume during the martial law, there were numerous midnight search raids on people's homes, and soldiers were constantly patrolling the streets, and let's also imagine that hundreds of accidental shootings resulted from the martial law declaration. Are these the conditions that you would want to live under? Would you want Bush to decide when the threat has waned so that a normal lifestyle could return?

Has anyone told you lately

Has anyone told you lately that your examples are atrocious and that you are an idiot? If not, consider it done.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Not the kind of response I'd expect from someone who

uses the word idiot..........so the US occupation is a friendly, compassionate occupation..........kinda like our occupation in Vietnam?....where a few million Vietnamese died? ......and Bush is a compassionate president........until he invades your country......How's that compassion and occupation working out for the Iraqis? the Afghans??? Get back to me when you have the facts, sonny.

profff

the US 'occupation'?  Are you an idiot???

come back when you have thoughts and ideas rather than 'talking points'

GoHunter08

"Get back to me when you

"Get back to me when you have the facts, sonny."

You have the facts, they are called history. But you are too stupid (that's an idiot who is drinking) to see it. The US was INVITED into Vietnam! haha!...Professor my ass!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

botg & mighty

I see Professor Sock Puppet has continued to spam the site while I've been out and about.

How charming. 

We need a better class of troll, here.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

YOU were the one who asked

YOU were the one who asked for evidence of liberal bias, d!psh!t!

 

All you were trying to steer the argument around.  Knock it off!!!!!!

You were the one who

You were the one who demanded evidence of liberal bias, just to see if you could win the argument.  He had plenty.  You were shot down.  Deal with it!

 

the liberal bias claim was demonstrated.

I asked for evidence since it was claimed without evidence in the first post. The bias evidence was shown, and I said so. The nitpicking had practically nothing to do with my MAIN point, which has never been credibly refuted. That point was this: US policy in Iraq has always resulted in increased misery, suffering and death for Iraqis, and there is no reason to think today's occupation will bring anything different to the past historical record.

Quit skewering around it. 

Quit skewering around it.  You just wanted to nitpick on everything.  That's it; end of story.

So...

when are you going to lead the charge, pack up and leave?

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

I am not responsible for the mess in Iraq .

I was always opposed to having a war in Iraq. Those persons who were responsible for the Iraq war should be the ones to go and clean up the mess.

Saddam is responsible for

Saddam is responsible for the mess in Iraq. Had he simply done as the UN and US had said, he would still be there, killing and raping at his whim. As it is, he is with Mohammad in hell.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass, we had Saddam contained

with inspections. It would have been much cheaper to contain him with inspections, where he was essentially toothless. The war has opened up a new can of worms, and has hurt the country badly, in my opinion and the majority of Americans.

Yeah, those inspections

Yeah, those inspections were really working.  Did you forget the part where he kept kicking out the UN weapons inspectors?  He half-heartedly let them back into the country on the eve of the war hoping his show of “good faith” would buy him some more time.  Of course, then there was the little part about the missing pages of the inventory of destroyed WMD his country was required to provide to the UN and the, “Aw shucks.  We lost the key.” routine for certain doors they didn’t want to let the inspectors into.

 

Yep, those inspections worked wonders to contain him.  We should have just kept doing that.  </sarcasm>

no WMD's turned up in the inspections.

Colin Powell stated in 2001 that Saddam was contained. Permanent inspections would have been a much better action.

You’re kidding, right?

You’re responding to post where I just pointed out that he kept kicking the inspectors out of the country, wouldn’t allow them unfettered access to areas they wanted to inspect when they WERE there and refused to provide the documentation showing the destruction of WMD’s he was known to have and you’re telling me no WMD’s turned up and permanent inspections would have worked.

 

That's rich.

the inspectors were forced to leave prior to the

invasion. Saddam had complied with inspections. hans Blix was doing the inspections and was forced to leave because of the US invasion. Another poster asked me to show a direct cause-effect relationship between the Iraq war and world terrorism. The simplest answer is to note the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq occurring AFTER we invaded and the number of terror attacks directed against US troops using IEd's and other devices INCREASED after the invasion. This is the simplest demonstration of a cause-effect relationship between the Iraq war and increased terrorism. It's very hard to find info into specific motives of other terrorists but the number of Iraqi suicide bombers increased after we invadede Iraq. This is a clear example of a cause=effect relationship between the Iraq war and increased terrorism.

“the inspectors were forced to leave…”

Right, just before the invasion the inspectors were forced to leave so they didn’t get hurt.

Um…  recall any OTHER times when Saddam kicked them out because he didn’t want them snooping around any more and he figured since Clinton was in office he could get away with it?

Do you seriously not remember any of that?  Or does that just not fit your agenda?

Try 1998 :

Try 1998 : http://www.iht.com/articles/1998/12/22/gulf.t_0.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/latest_news/238991.stm

But then, the lefties seem to have a collective and chronic short-term memory.

"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps

Thanks for the backup, MG

I hate doing research for links, especially for something so obvious and recent.

And you're right, the memory is controlled by the agenda.

nothing in either article stated that Saddam

kicked out the inspectors. This is revised history, according to my source, FAIR.org, a left wing media watchdog.

2 true statements by Bush: "This is an interesting group, the haves,...and the have mores.  Some people call you the elite.  I call you my base".      "Our enemies are resourceful, and so are we.  They never stop thinking up ways to harm us,.....and neither do we!" 

UN Inspectors

 

What Disarmament Means

UNSCR 687 and related resolutions 707, 715, and1051 stipulate that Iraq must provide full, final and complete disclosure of
all aspects of its nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile weapons
programs; allow unconditional inspection access by international monitors; cease
any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy any material or equipment related to
these programs; and cooperate with UN monitoring of relevant Iraqi facilities
and trade activities.

What Iraq Has Done

" When these resolutions were passed, it was expected
that compliance would require no more than 90 days. Instead, nine years later,
sanctions remain in place because Iraq has decided to..(3) give UN inspectors fraudulent declarations to mask weapons
and equipment that are still hidden."

"Iraq began playing hide-and-seek
with UN inspectors in 1991. In December 1998, Saddam stopped all cooperation
with the UN
, refusing to let any weapons inspectors into the country."

"In July 1998, Iraq seized
from the hands of UNSCOM inspectors an Iraqi Air Force document indicating that
Iraq had misrepresented the expenditure of over 6,000 bombs which may have contained
over 700 tons of chemical agent. Iraq continues to refuse to provide this document
to the UN."

"At the request of the
UNSC, Brazilian Ambassador Amorim led a review...His 7 April 1999 report affirmed that future work "should be based on the full implementation....and called for Iraq to provide
UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors with all the rights called for by UNSC resolutions
687, 707, and 1051." Rather than do so, Saddam has refused to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq."

" Since December 1998,
Saddam Hussein has prevented UN weapons inspectors from even entering Iraq. We
do not know for sure what he is doing under the roofs of the weapons factories
they routinely monitored. So, in addition to the weapons he has worked so hard
to hide since 1991, Saddam may well have his experts making chemical and biological
weapons, and pursuing nuclear weapon designs."

PS-Hans Blix was never 100% satisfied.

MOD, but there were ongoing inspections up to the time of the

invasion. What imminent threat gave Bush autority to attack Iraq? Those UN resolutions don't give authority to attack. The UN charter is very specific regarding the circumstances where one country can legally invade another. Israel has also been in violation of UN sanctions but they are not attacked and could not be attacked legally under the UN Charter. The WMD case was a fraud, according to Scott Ritter, ex UN weapons inspector and a marine vet. There was lots of evidence suggesting Saddam no longer had weapons or they had degraded. Inspections turned up nothing.

Multi-death from chemicals. Arrogance has won. (h/t, Slayer)

Care to mention something else you left out on Scott Ritter?  Also, his being a UN weapons inspector and a Marine vet does not immunize him from scrutiny.  (I find it amusing you fall back on those qualifications, yet that tactic doesn't seem to apply to those who disagree with you in the slightest.  Contradictions collapse.)

Chemical weapons, if you knew anything about them (and now I call in your chemistry credentials into question), take a whole hell of a LONG time to degrade.  Don't believe me?  Farmers in France as late as the 1990s (and this may STILL be going on) are known to develop mustard blisters from plowing old WWI era battlefields.  Some degradation.  The effects of nuclear weapons are actually shorter lived, what with Strontium-90 going through one half life in 30 years, and Iodine-131 in a month. 

If they just degraded on their own, then why did the United States take its inventory of chemical weapons to the middle of the Pacific for incineration?  Bear in mind that most of those chemicals were manufactured in the 1950s. 

Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

Here is some info about the WMD's:

Excerpts from the book,"Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks:

The Bush administration offered three basic rationales for the US intervention in Iraq: the threat it believed was osed by Saddam's WMD's; the supposed nexus it saw between Saddam Hussein's government and transnational terrorism; and the need to liberate an oppressed people.(pps374-5)

 

In January, 2004, David Kay, as he stepped down from his post as head of the Iraqi Survey Group, the US government intelligence organization created to hunt for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, announced that he had concluded that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons stockpiles in the 1990's, but had bluffed about still having them...........to maintain an image of power. "Everyone was wrong," Kay said. President Bush was sked about this by Tim Russert on Meet the Press on February 8, 2004.

Russert:" The night you took the country to war, March17th, you said this:"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime contunues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised ."

Bush:"right."

Russert: That apparently is not the case."

Bush:"correct"

Russert:"How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?

Bush:"............I expected to find the weapons..........I based my decision on the best intelligence possible..........gathered over the years..........intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought was valid. And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror.........we were attacked........every threat had to be reanalyzed.........looked at. ...........we looked at the intelligence.........we remembered the fact that he had used weapons......he had had weapons. ........he was paying for suicide bombers. ......the fact he was funding terrorist groups. ......he was a dangerous man..........

Russert:nothing more important.

Bush:..........I expected there to be stockpiles.........But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons........when David Kay .....says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories....where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. ..........They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out. ...............But David Kay did report.......that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. .....Saddam........was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world. I made the decision to go to the United Nations..........their data.....unaccounted for stockpiles.........I believe it is essential....when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late before they become imminent......so that's why I made the decision I made.(Fiasco,pps375-6)

(Fiasco, pps376-378):"Despite Bush's theories.....the negative returns would continue to pour in. In October, 2004, Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Kay as head of the ISG, produced....final findings.....no such arsenal........in a 1000page report. Saddam had indeed eliminated his weapons in the early 1990's, but had tried to preserve the intellectual and physical ability to restart the weapons programs at some point. Duelfer.......found no ......evidence of an effort to buy uranium from other countries .....he testified to the senate that, as some analysts had suspected, the aluminum tubes Iraq was buying,which the Bush administration had made central to the argument that Iraq was developing a nuclear capability, were for....conventional rockets."......the United States government asserted that Saddam.... had reconstituted his nuclear weapons programs, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapons production facilities and was producing chemical weapons', the Robb-Silberman commission noted....."And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over."

...in 2005, the CIA issued an internal report.....amounted to a major correction of its previous conclusions on chemical weapons, Titled "Iraq:No largescale Chemical Warfare Efforts since Early 1990's" .....concluded "Iraq probably did not pursue chemical warfare efforts after 1991."

 

 

 

 

Thank you ever so much, Perf Twaddle

For another cut & paste job, from the illustrious Perfesser Twaddle.

Still paddling that handmade kayak, I see.  What'd you make it out of, chickenwire? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blaaaaan-D, back for more ridicule and

abuse....son, ......like the Monty Python character.....in their Search for the Holy Grail Movie.....getting all his limbs chopped off....and yelling for his attacker to come back and fight........even as he has no limbs left......still trying to attack me????........Blaaaaaahn-D? No arguments(no limbs) but still on the attack, eh, Blaaaaaahn-D???

Remember advice from the grandmaster to the novice: Always have fun and NEVER get angry? This is Professor Truth's words of advice for you, Blaaaaaaahn-D!

Loved your vid, Perv. Twaddle

Advice from the novice, huh?  Gee thanks. 

How's that chickenwire kayak today?

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blaahn-d, pinky the cat is more of a critical thinker

than you........pinky clearly shows what war crimes are and how the Bush administration has acted in a way that makes them war criminals.....too difficult to follow Pinky's thoughts, Blaaaahn-D?

Thanks, Perv Twaddle

Coming from you that's quite the compliment.  You, as a flea on a gnat's arse....a kitty, even one named "pinkie" is rather fearsome, yes?

So, if you would, kindly enumerate the crimes for which President Bush has been indicted...or cite the articles of impeachment which Congress has proferred.  

And kindly spare me the imaginary crimes you've brewed up in that fever-swamp reality of yours.

I'm waiting, Perfessor

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blaaaahn-D, I guess in your world, unindicted=

not a criminal, even when the evidence is right in front of you.

Blaaaaahn-D, it's hard to indict Don Corleone when the lawyer in charge protects the DON. The criminal president was protected by a criminal atty general who helped try to justify torture like waterboarding. Think on it sonny.

Blaaaaan-d, not a cut-n-paste from Fiasco,

I typed and edited parts from the book!.......Son, I guess you made another false assertion, ......expected from you......are those brain concussion injuries.......

clouding your thinking, son?....Just a thought, Blaaaaahn-D!

Perv twaddle...

Yep, just another cut & paste job from you, perv.  Not a real thought of your own in that fever swamp brain.  Keep shilling, sock puppet.

And I'm so glad it amuses you to call me son...talk about reading deficient.  You just proved it, yet again, ROTFLMAO. 

Ta ta.  Must run, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, knowing what an attention whore you are and all that.

We need a better class of troll, here. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blaaaaahn-D, you are improving your

posts. Still no arguments of any substance and the same words used on me, but now you're having fun with it. You learned, Blaaaaan-d.

Savor the moment, all fledglings leave their nest at some time in their life, Blaaaaaahn-d. Too bad you can't attack the substance given, huh,.....Blaaaaahn-d. ...Much better to attack......smear.......and smear again......the bringer of bad news for your rightwing dogma......eh, Blaaaaaahn-d. Bet you believe in a real virgin Mary,........eh, Blaaaaaahn-d. Got that rational thinking thing about it, huh.......Blaaaaaahn-d. But , you are improving, Blaaaaaahn-d. There's some hope for you yet. Keep on blogging, and always have fun. OK, Blaaaaaahn-D???

Prof T......You gotta get over this WMD thingie

 Boy, you gotta get your head in the Game here...Bush WAS elected for 8 years, WMD's are no longer an issue, and Bush did get 53% of the vote last election, and you need to get yourself about 6 or 7 years forward here.

Satelllite photo's right before we invaded Iraq showed some Big 18 wheeler Wagon Trains crossing over into Syria from Iraq, and you need to ask yourself about what you think were in all those Truckloads...and then ask yourself why Israel recently bombed Syria and WHAT they bombed, but more than anything else you need to GIVE UP on "Criminal" anything as far as George Bush is concerned....No criminal violations were ever pursued, No impeachment, nothing, nada for Bush/Criminal.  

AND, if this current Congress hasn't been able prove anything Criminal for Bush or Rove, It ain't gonna happen.  So get your head outta tha sand and lets talk current events....not events as you would like to have seen them unfold in 2003.

And by the way, due to Term limits Bush isn't running in 2008. 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

JT, regarding the WMD's, here is a response

given in Thomas Rick's book, Fiasco(pps 377-8): "Lt. Cdr. Richard Riggs, who had served as the tactical action officer aboard a Navy ship that fired Tomahawk cruise missiles in the opening salvo of the war, said that the WMD situation was forcing him to reexamine his role. "Lacking the evidence that Iraq had possessed WMD,.....in an article in Proceedings, the professional magazine for Navy officers,"I have begun to question our motivations....I am asking, not only as a subordinate to a superior seeking justification for our course of action, but as a US citizen holding my elected officials responsible for my country's leadership: Where are the weapons of mass destruction?"

Meanwhile, no solid evidence of a nexus between Iraq and Islamic extremist terrorists, such as al Qaeda, surfaced either. In June 2004, the bipartisan 9-11 commission ..........released its report which concluded, unanimously, that while there had been contacts between al Qaeda and ....HUssein's Iraq, it had seen no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship." Instead , by the end of 2004, the US intelligence community would conclude that the invasion had turned Iraq into a new breeding ground for a fresh generation of tougher, more professional Islamic extremist terrorists.(from Fiasco, pps377-8)

 

JT, as I've said, the strategy of attacking Iraq to destroy terrorists had the opposite effect.

No we dident Prof. Are you

No we dident Prof. Are you overlooking the oil for food? Billions flowed into Iraq, which were used to buy weapons, tanks, rifles and anti aircraft weapons. Do you not remember the constant firing at US aircraft? The Iraqis in the south that were slaughtered? Toothless? Contained?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Right on bass

Are you overlooking the oil for food?

But of course. He's ovelooking that and every other point that would make him....gasp....wrong.  And isn't that what's important here?  Not the suffering of the Iraqis under a brutal dictatorship.  Not the REAL chance at long last for millions of Iraqis living a life free to choose their leadership.  The important thing is for one lonely leftist creep in the US to be right.

So it is hereby stated for the world to see; Truther is right.  Now can we please move on to supporting the Iraqis and the bright new future freedom brings and quit harping on the past?

Saddam was contained as long as inspections occurred.

He was unable to do anything as long as inspections occurred. It would have been much cheaper to do this, unless there were other motives involved. There are, it's the mideast and central Asian oil that we are trying to control. So, we take Iraq, essentially control it's oil, build mideast bases to project more power in the region, especially considering future resource conflicts between US and Chinese and India's growing economic interest. Oil has always influenced US mideast policy.

Hello?!!!

What inspections?!!!  He kept kicking them OUT!

According to FAIR.org, the idea that

the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam is false.

WE cited the articles, not

WE cited the articles, not FAIR, bozo.

Butler removed UN inspectors in 98, not Saddam!

http://www.fair.org/...

The fair article above states that UN inspector Butler removed the inspectors prior to the 98 bombing campaign. BOZO is the name for a clown, more aptly suited for you.

Ooh, I'm shaking... it

Ooh, I'm shaking... it didn't happen like that, and you know it.

I gave you think link, bd.

Keep believing your right wing dogma.

Saddam contained

Are you that inhumane? What about all the women that Saddam and his 2 rapists sons tortured for their personal pleasure? They were depraved and anyone that condones their behavior by turning a blind-eye to it is also depraved...[cue the music for CNN, the depraved news network.]

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

as Henry Kissinger once said

after being asked why he refused help from Kurdish leaders who were rebelling against Saddam, resulting in many deaths,"foreign policy should not be confused with missionary work." He gives an insight into the reality of US foreign policy with this comment.

What Mess????

Are you isolated where you are????  Even the lib #1 cage liner the NYT has said the surge is working.  Even John Murtha admitted that things are better in Iraq.  People are returning to their houses in Bagdad.  The worst city in Iraq has joined forces with US Soldiers and, this going to floor you, run AQ out of the city.

The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

After the "victory", then what follows?

We will keep a large enough force in Iraq to be able to control the Iraqis forever. Essentially, it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"(I am a WHO fan) with a quisling government the new boss.

This is not the best path for our country, in my opinion. The money being thrown down the Iraqi rathole could be used increasing port security inspections, and detection equipment, or used to increase

intelligence gathering capabilities, or other terror stopping measures. The war has resulted in increased worldwide terrorism, and has absolutely no evidence to support the assertion that it's making us safer.

Bush's truest statements: "Our enemies are resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking of ways to harm us, and neither do we."

"Here's a nice crowd, the haves, and the have mores! Some people call you the elite! I call you my base!"

professor

I assume we will run Iraq like we run every country where we have military bases.

Do you ever get tired of being SO wrong?

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

LK, my main point is that US intervention in

Iraq has resulted in increased misery, suffering , and death. I've given examples to demonstrate this(UN sanctions supported by the US and approved by Clinton's sec. of state, Albright, who said the price of half a million dead Iraqis from sanctions was worth it), US support of the murderous dictator Hussein in the 80's when he committed his WORST ATROCITIES, US actions in the post GWI ceasefire, when Shiite uprisings were violently put down, while US policy did nothing to stop this. There's no reason to think that theee 2003-20?? invasion-occupation will bring anything different. Especially considering that a million dead Iraqis and 4+ million refugees have occurred during this time. Future optimistic scenarios have yet to bear fruit(remember Bush's "triumphant" statements on the aircraft carrier declaring victory with a banner exclaiming "mission accomplished". To claim I've been wrong when I predicted that attacking Iraq was a terrible plan is nothing less than insanity.

professor, are you familiar with the English language?

Do you not comprehend the difference between a mission and a war? Are you really trying to say that a mission cannot be victorious?

Furthermore, if indeed the US bears some responsibility for Saddam's atrocities during th 80's, doesn't it make sense when you realize you have errer to fix the problem? I guess the liberal stance is that if you make a mistake, cover it up and blame someone else. I think you go beyond just being stupid, I think you are actually depraved. How could you possibly condone leaving Saddam and his 2 rapist sons in control to torture countless women?

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice

LK

I'll see your depraved and raise you a psychotic.

LK, the US policy with Saddam in the 80's was a calculated

and cynical war crime collaboration, not a mistake.

Prove that, Prof

The war has resulted in increased worldwide terrorism

And when I say prove that, I mean the cause and effect.  You made the statement, so back it up.

We have an old saying here that you newbies may not have seen...link or slink.

And don't bother asking me off topic deflecting questions, not interested.

Put up or shut up time, prof. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde

Wasting your time Blonde.

This dude's burnt out.  Notice the "throwing money down the Iraq RAT hole" comment.  That's all Iraqis are to these hateful, self-serving elitists....rats.  Not human beings with the first opportunity in their lives to have a better future enjoying the freedom truther takes for granted.  It really pisses me off when I see a supposed peace, love and woodstocker so casually dismiss other human beings as not worth the trouble of helping out.  And if it isn't the Iraqis it's the conservaties, right-wingers or other agenda-suitable folks to hate.  If that were not the case, these truthers would be out there supporting the FREE Iraqis instead of doing everything in their power to insure the Iraqis are kept in their place....like rats in a cage.

I quit listening to these hypocritical burnt-out moonbats a long time ago.  They obviously had a difficult time with their psychedelics back in the day.

He may be a Who fan but I'm sure the Who is no fan of this flake. But just in case truther is a deadhead too, let's nip that one in the bud - "We even had some leftist politicos from Berkeley ranting, the only bring-down of the day.'  Phil Lesh, Grateful Dead - Searching for the Sound

Quite ac...I knew I'd get only chirping crickets

from P. Talking Point.

But I get sick and tired of him throwing about his "feelings" and never being made to back these blithering idiot statements up with fact.

I nailed him to the wall the other night (only took 9 posts) over AF's tag. 

You're right, not worth my time, so thanks.

We need a better class of troll, here.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Agree Blonde

We need a better class of troll, here.

Indeed Blonde. This dude got old after the first day.

But I can relate. You can only take so much of this psycho-babble revisionist history.  Then you just have to tell them to shut-up and check back in to the "institute" for some more quiet time.  This guys been ranting for days like a biker on speed.

This moonbat needs to give it a rest.  The war in Iraq is over, the Iraqis decided whose side they are on, we won, get over it.

Blonde, I beg your pardon ????

I succinctly showed a cause-effect relation between increased world terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. The number of terrorist attacks shot up in Iraq. How many IED attacks per day have been perpetrated as a result of the invasion.

I put up! Now, you shut up!

 

Hey Nutty

Go to sleep already.

And stay asleep.

(I tease you, you know that. You're a leftwing warrior, I'll give you that... even though you're so darn wrong about everything.)

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

Hey Mr Shy, I'm surprised

that a creative man of the musical arts supports Bush. You must be amajor stockholder in some of those war profiteering comanies, or an independently wealthy billionaire. What gives?

Hey Twaddly Dee Twaddly Dumb

Yes, a creative man of the musical arts with a mind of his own. A rarity, I know.

You left out "pig" (er, Helen Thomas) in that phrase you're so dear of, "war (pig) profiteering", Twaddle. You're slipping.... or you're incrimentally changing your tune (pun thoroughly intended.)

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

so Mr Shy, what ,exactly, is the couse effect connection between

the war in Iraq and my freedom here????? If you can't answer this simple question, I think you need to ask ,why are we there??? My answer is,"it's another outcome of a policy called 'disaster capitalism', where 'free marketeers'(Uncle Milty's Chicago boys), wait for disasters like wars or natural disasters like Katrina, go in when the population is in a state of shock, completely gut the public system, and buy off public resources for pennies on the dollar. If people resist, torture and kill them. That's what Iraq is all about. Do you have an alternate explanation that has any evidence to support it?

Nutty... it's now "BARDS" for u libs

B - A - R - D - S

Bush and Anything Republican Derangement Syndrom

Nut, I just hope, should a Democrat win in 2008 (ugh, the thought), I see you yapping away and shouting about the awful military industrial complex and the evil capitalistic U.S. -- which you better be doing, as it has next to nothing to do with who is president for 4 or 8 years -- as you do now with a Republican in office.

 

Dana Perino and Newsbusters gals will look great in Shywear

(*NB guys, too)

Mr Shy, I'm asking you again:

what is the specific cause/effect relationship between the war in Iraq and my freedom?? I've asked this same question repeatedly with nothing but shuck and jive? I f you can't answer this question, my next question is , Why are we in Iraq??

Here is a 23min video detailing why the war was illegal and why the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes.

http://www.youtube.c...

Well

Attempted Iraqi Attacks on U.S. Posts, January 18-19, 1991: Iraqi agents planted bombs at the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia’s home residence and at the USIS library in Manila.

Sniper Attack on the U.S. Embassy in Bonn, February 13, 1991: Three Red Army Faction members fired automatic rifles from across the Rhine River at the U.S. Embassy Chancery. No one was hurt.

Assassination of former Indian Prime Minister, May 21, 1991: A female member of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) killed herself, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, and 16 others by detonating an explosive vest after presenting a garland of flowers to the former Prime Minister during an election rally in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

1992

Kidnapping of U.S. Businessmen in the Philippines, January 17-21, 1992: A senior official of the corporation Philippine Geothermal was kidnapped in Manila by the Red Scorpion Group, and two U.S. businessmen were seized independently by the National Liberation Army and by Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 1992: Hizballah claimed responsibility for a blast that leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, causing the deaths of 29 and wounding 242.

 

1993

Kidnappings of U.S. Citizens in Colombia, January 31, 1993: Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorists kidnapped three U.S. missionaries.

World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.

Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

1994

Hebron Massacre, February 25, 1994: Jewish right-wing extremist and U.S. citizen Baruch Goldstein machine-gunned Moslem worshippers at a mosque in West Bank town of Hebron, killing 29 and wounding about 150.

FARC Hostage-taking, September 23, 1994: FARC rebels kidnapped U.S. citizen Thomas Hargrove in Colombia.

Air France Hijacking, December 24, 1994: Members of the Armed Islamic Group seized an Air France Flight to Algeria. The four terrorists were killed during a rescue effort.

1995

Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995: Two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a third in Karachi, Pakistan.

Tokyo Subway Station Attack, March 20, 1995: Twelve persons were killed and 5,700 were injured in a Sarin nerve gas attack on a crowded subway station in the center of Tokyo, Japan. A similar attack occurred nearly simultaneously in the Yokohama subway system. The Aum Shinri-kyo cult was blamed for the attacks.

Bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995: Right-wing extremists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City with a massive truck bomb that killed 166 and injured hundreds more in what was up to then the largest terrorist attack on American soil.

Kashmiri Hostage-taking, July 4, 1995: In India six foreigners, including two U.S. citizens, were taken hostage by Al-Faran, a Kashmiri separatist group. One non-U.S. hostage was later found beheaded.

Jerusalem Bus Attack, August 21, 1995: HAMAS claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed 6 and injured over 100 persons, including several U.S. citizens.

Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995: A rocket-propelled grenade was fired through the window of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, ostensibly in retaliation for U.S. strikes on Serb positions in Bosnia.

Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995: The Islamic Movement of Change planted a bomb in a Riyadh military compound that killed one U.S. citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. government, and over 40 others.

Egyptian Embassy Attack, November 19, 1995: A suicide bomber drove a vehicle into the Egyptian Embassy compound in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least 16 and injuring 60 persons. Three militant Islamic groups claimed responsibility.

1996

Papuan Hostage Abduction, January 8, 1996: In Indonesia, 200 Free Papua Movement (OPM) guerrillas abducted 26 individuals in the Lorenta nature preserve, Irian Jaya Province. Indonesian Special Forces members rescued the remaining nine hostages on May 15.

Kidnapping in Colombia, January 19, 1996: Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas kidnapped a US citizen and demanded a $1 million ransom. The hostage was released on May 22.

Tamil Tigers Attack, January 31, 1996: Members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rammed an explosives-laden truck into the Central Bank in the heart of downtown Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing 90 civilians and injuring more than 1,400 others, including 2 US citizens.

IRA Bombing, February 9, 1996: An Irish Republican Army (IRA) bomb detonated in London, killing 2 persons and wounding more than 100 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.

Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996: Unidentified assailants fired a rocket at the U.S. Embassy compound in Athens, causing minor damage to three diplomatic vehicles and some surrounding buildings. Circumstances of the attack suggested it was an operation carried out by the 17 November group.

ELN Kidnapping, February 16, 1996: Six alleged National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Colombia. After 9 months, the hostage was released.

HAMAS Bus Attack, February 26, 1996: In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three U.S. citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens.

Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996: HAMAS and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including 2 U.S. citizens.

West Bank Attack, May 13, 1996: Arab gunmen opened fire on a bus and a group of Yeshiva students near the Bet El settlement, killing a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and wounding three Israelis. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but HAMAS was suspected.

AID Worker Abduction, May 31, 1996: A gang of former Contra guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. employee of the Agency for International Development (AID) who was assisting with election preparations in rural northern Nicaragua. She was released unharmed the next day after members of the international commission overseeing the preparations intervened.

Zekharya Attack, June 9, 1996: Unidentified gunmen opened fire on a car near Zekharya, killing a dual U.S./Israeli citizen and an Israeli. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was suspected.

Manchester Truck Bombing, June 15, 1996: An IRA truck bomb detonated at a Manchester shopping center, wounding 206 persons, including two German tourists, and caused extensive property damage.

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack.

ETA Bombing, July 20, 1996: A bomb exploded at Tarragona International Airport in Reus, Spain, wounding 35 persons, including British and Irish tourists. The Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) organization was suspected.

Bombing of Archbishop of Oran, August 1, 1996: A bomb exploded at the home of the French Archbishop of Oran, killing him and his chauffeur. The attack occurred after the Archbishop's meeting with the French Foreign Minister. The Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) is suspected.

Sudanese Rebel Kidnapping, August 17, 1996: Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) rebels kidnapped six missionaries in Mapourdit, including a U.S. citizen, an Italian, three Australians, and a Sudanese. The SPLA released the hostages 11 days later.

PUK Kidnapping, September 13, 1996: In Iraq, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) militants kidnapped four French workers for Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, a Canadian United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) official, and two Iraqis.

Assassination of South Korean Consul, October 1, 1996: In Vladivostok, Russia, assailants attacked and killed a South Korean consul near his home. No one claimed responsibility, but South Korean authorities believed that the attack was carried out by professionals and that the assailants were North Koreans. North Korean officials denied the country's involvement in the attack.

Red Cross Worker Kidnappings, November 1, 1996: In Sudan a breakaway group from the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) kidnapped three International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) workers, including a U.S. citizen, an Australian, and a Kenyan. On 9 December the rebels released the hostages in exchange for ICRC supplies and a health survey for their camp.

Paris Subway Explosion, December 3, 1996: A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train as it arrived at the Port Royal station, killing two French nationals, a Moroccan, and a Canadian, and injuring 86 persons. Among those injured were one U.S. citizen and a Canadian. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but Algerian extremists are suspected.

Abduction of US. Citizen by FARC, December 11, 1996: Five armed men claiming to be members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) kidnapped and later killed a U.S. geologist at a methane gas exploration site in La Guajira Department.

Tupac Amaru Seizure of Diplomats, December 17, 1996: Twenty-three members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) took several hundred people hostage at a party given at the Japanese Ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru. Among the hostages were several US officials, foreign ambassadors and other diplomats, Peruvian Government officials, and Japanese businessmen. The group demanded the release of all MRTA members in prison and safe passage for them and the hostage takers. The terrorists released most of the hostages in December but held 81 Peruvians and Japanese citizens for several months.

1997

Egyptian Letter Bombs, January 2-13, 1997: A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, New York City, London, and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kansas. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the Al-Hayat office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage.

Tajik Hostage Abductions, February 4-17, 1997: Near Komsomolabad, Tajikistan, a paramilitary group led by Bakhrom Sodirov abducted four United Nations (UN) military observers. The victims included two Swiss, one Austrian, one Ukrainian, and their Tajik interpreter. The kidnappers demanded safe passage for their supporters from Afghanistan to Tajikistan. In four separate incidents occurring between Dushanbe and Garm, Bakhrom Sodirov and his group kidnapped two International Committee for the Red Cross members, four Russian journalists and their Tajik driver, four UNHCR members, and the Tajik Security Minister, Saidamir Zukhurov.

Venezuelan Abduction, February 14, 1997: Six armed Colombian guerrillas kidnapped a US oil engineer and his Venezuelan pilot in Apure, Venezuela. The kidnappers released the Venezuelan pilot on 22 February. According to authorities, the FARC is responsible for the kidnapping.

Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."

ELN Kidnapping, February 24, 1997: National Liberation Army (ELN) guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen employed by a Las Vegas gold corporation who was scouting a gold mining operation in Colombia. The ELN demanded a ransom of $2.5 million.

FARC Kidnapping, March 7, 1997: FARC guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. mining employee and his Colombian colleague who were searching for gold in Colombia. On November 16, the rebels released the two hostages after receiving a $50,000 ransom.

Hotel Nacional Bombing, July 12, 1997: A bomb exploded at the Hotel Nacional in Havana, injuring three persons and causing minor damage. A previously unknown group calling itself the Military Liberation Union claimed responsibility.

Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, September 4, 1997: Three suicide bombers of HAMAS detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual U.S./Israeli citizen was among the dead, and 7 U.S. citizens were wounded.

OAS Abductions, October 23, 1997: In Colombia ELN rebels kidnapped two foreign members of the Organization of American States (OAS) and a Colombian human rights official at a roadblock. The ELN claimed that the kidnapping was intended "to show the international community that the elections in Colombia are a farce."

Yemeni Kidnappings, October 30, 1997: Al-Sha'if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on smuggling charges and several public works projects they claim the government promised them. They released the hostage on November 27.

Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997: Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum Corporation and their Pakistani driver after they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. The Islami Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council, claimed responsibility in a call to the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. In a letter to Pakistani newspapers, the Aimal Khufia Action Committee also claimed responsibility.

Tourist Killings in Egypt, November 17, 1997: Al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) gunmen shot and killed 58 tourists and four Egyptians and wounded 26 others at the Hatshepsut Temple in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor. Thirty-four Swiss, eight Japanese, five Germans, four Britons, one French, one Colombian, a dual Bulgarian/British citizen, and four unidentified persons were among the dead. Twelve Swiss, two Japanese, two Germans, one French, and nine Egyptians were among the wounded.

1998

UN Observer Abductions, February 19, 1998: Armed supporters of late Georgian president Zviad Gamsakhurdia abducted four UN military observers from Sweden, Uruguay, and the Czech Republic.

FARC Abduction, March 21-23, 1998: FARC rebels kidnapped a US citizen in Sabaneta, Colombia. FARC members also killed three persons, wounded 14, and kidnapped at least 27 others at a roadblock near Bogota. Four U.S. citizens and one Italian were among those kidnapped, as well as the acting president of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and his wife.

Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998: Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a U.S. citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a sub-clan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.

IRA Bombing, Banbridge, August 1, 1998: A 500-pound car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded outside a shoe store in Banbridge, North Ireland, injuring 35 persons and damaging at least 200 homes.

U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible.

IRA Bombing, Omagh, August 15, 1998: A 500-pound car bomb planted by the Real IRA exploded outside a local courthouse in the central shopping district of Omagh, Northern Ireland, killing 29 persons and injuring over 330.

Colombian Pipeline Bombing, October 18, 1998: A National Liberation Army (ELN) planted bomb exploded on the Ocensa pipeline in Antioquia Department, killing approximately 71 persons and injuring at least 100 others. The pipeline is jointly owned by the Colombia State Oil Company Ecopetrol and a consortium including U.S., French, British, and Canadian companies.

Armed Kidnapping in Colombia, November 15, 1998: Armed assailants followed a U.S. businessman and his family home in Cundinamarca Department and kidnapped his 11-year-old son after stealing money, jewelry, one automobile, and two cell phones. The kidnappers demanded $1 million in ransom. On January 21, 1999, the kidnappers released the boy.

1999

Angolan Aircraft Downing, January 2, 1999: A UN plane carrying one U.S. citizen, four Angolans, two Philippine nationals and one Namibian was shot down, according to a UN official. No deaths or injuries were reported. Angolan authorities blamed the attack on National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) rebels. UNITA officials denied shooting down the plane.

Ugandan Rebel Attack, February 14, 1999: A pipe bomb exploded inside a bar, killing five persons and injuring 35 others. One Ethiopian and four Ugandan nationals died in the blast, and one U.S. citizen working for USAID, two Swiss nationals, one Pakistani, one Ethiopian, and 27 Ugandans were injured. Ugandan authorities blamed the attack on the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF).

Greek Embassy Seizure, February 16, 1999: Kurdish protesters stormed and occupied the Greek Embassy in Vienna, taking the Greek Ambassador and six other persons hostage. Several hours later the protesters released the hostages and left the Embassy. The attack followed the Turkish Government's announcement of the successful capture of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan. Kurds also occupied Kenyan, Israeli, and other Greek diplomatic facilities in France, Holland, Switzerland, Britain, and Germany over the following days.

FARC Kidnappings, February 25, 1999: FARC kidnapped three U.S. citizens working for the Hawaii-based Pacific Cultural Conservancy International. On March 4, the bodies of the three victims were found in Venezuela.

Hutu Abductions, March 1, 1999: 150 armed Hutu rebels attacked three tourist camps in Uganda, killed four Ugandans, and abducted three U.S. citizens, six Britons, three New Zealanders, two Danish citizens, one Australian, and one Canadian national. Two of the U.S. citizens and six of the other hostages were subsequently killed by their abductors.

ELN Hostage-taking, March 23, 1999: Armed guerrillas kidnapped a U.S. citizen in Boyaca, Colombia. The National Liberation Army (ELN) claimed responsibility and demanded $400,000 ransom. On 20 July, ELN rebels released the hostage unharmed following a ransom payment of $48,000.

ELN Hostage-taking, May 30, 1999: In Cali, Colombia, armed ELN militants attacked a church in the neighborhood of Ciudad Jardin, kidnapping 160 persons, including six U.S. citizens and one French national. The rebels released approximately 80 persons, including three U.S. citizens, later that day.

Shell Platform Bombing, June 27, 1999: In Port Harcourt, Nigeria, armed youths stormed a Shell oil platform, kidnapping one U.S. citizen, one Nigerian national, and one Australian citizen, and causing undetermined damage. A group calling itself "Enough is Enough in the Niger River" claimed responsibility. Further seizures of oil facilities followed.

AFRC Kidnappings, August 4, 1999: An Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) faction kidnapped 33 UN representatives near Occra Hills, Sierra Leone. The hostages included one U.S. citizen, five British soldiers, one Canadian citizen, one representative from Ghana, one military officer from Russia, one officer from Kyrgystan, one officer from Zambia, one officer from Malaysia, a local Bishop, two UN officials, two local journalists, and 16 Sierra Leonean nationals.

Burmese Embassy Seizure, October 1, 1999: Burmese dissidents seized the Burmese Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, taking 89 persons hostage, including one U.S. citizen.

PLA Kidnapping, December 23, 1999: Colombian People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forces kidnapped a U.S. citizen in an unsuccessful ransoming effort.

Indian Airlines Airbus Hijacking, December 24, 1999: Five militants hijacked a flight bound from Katmandu to New Delhi carrying 189 people. The plane and its passengers were released unharmed on December 31.

2000

Car bombing in Spain, January 27, 2000: Police officials reported unidentified individuals set fire to a Citroen car dealership in Iturreta, causing extensive damage to the building and destroying 12 vehicles. The attack bore the hallmark of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA).

RUF Attacks on U.N. Mission Personnel, May 1, 2000: On 1 May in Makeni, Sierra Leone, Revolutionary United Front (RUF) militants kidnapped at least 20 members of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and surrounded and opened fire on a UNAMSIL facility, according to press reports. The militants killed five UN soldiers in the attack. RUF militants kidnapped 300 UNAMSIL peacekeepers throughout the country, according to press reports. On 15 May in Foya, Liberia, the kidnappers released 139 hostages. On 28 May, on the Liberia and Sierra Leone border, armed militants released unharmed the last of the UN peacekeepers. In Freetown, according to press reports, armed militants ambushed two military vehicles carrying four journalists. A Spaniard and one U.S. citizen were killed in a May 25 car bombing in Freetown for which the RUF was probably responsible. Suspected RUF rebels also kidnapped 21 Indian UN peacekeepers in Freetown on June 6. Additional attacks by RUF on foreign personnel followed.

Diplomatic Assassination in Greece, June 8, 2000: In Athens, Greece, two unidentified gunmen killed British Defense Attaché Stephen Saunders in an ambush. The Revolutionary Organization 17 November claimed responsibility.

ELN Kidnapping, June 27, 2000: In Bogota, Colombia, ELN militants kidnapped a 5-year-old U.S. citizen and his Colombian mother, demanding an undisclosed ransom.

Kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan, August 12, 2000: In the Kara-Su Valley, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan took four U.S. citizens hostage. The Americans escaped on August 12.

Church Bombing in Tajikistan, October 1, 2000: Unidentified militants detonated two bombs in a Christian church in Dushanbe, killing seven persons and injuring 70 others. The church was founded by a Korean-born U.S. citizen, and most of those killed and wounded were Korean. No one claimed responsibility.

Helicopter Hijacking, October 12, 2000: In Sucumbios Province, Ecuador, a group of armed kidnappers led by former members of defunct Colombian terrorist organization the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), took hostage 10 employees of Spanish energy consortium REPSOL. Those kidnapped included five U.S. citizens, one Argentine, one Chilean, one New Zealander, and two French pilots who escaped four days later. On January 30, 2001, the kidnappers murdered American hostage Ronald Sander. The remaining hostages were released on February 23 following the payment of $13 million in ransom by the oil companies.

Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected.

Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000: A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the U.S. Embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was likely responsible.

well99

Thank you, on behalf of myself and everyone not named "professor truth", "leon", and a few others. Although, they should thank you, too.

"Houston, we have a problem. The problem is Islamic terrorism."

Or it was until a the worst of the worst attacks finally woke us up. Thank God someone with some brass balls was in the White House.

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

Well 99, you don't seem well.

You forgot the THOUSANDS of IED terrorist attacks on US soldiers in IRAQ AFTER our invasion. So it seems that, if we are truly fighting a "war on terror", we're not being very smart about it now, are we?

lil awol true comments: "our enemies ar resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm us, and neither do we."

 

another telling Bushism: "here's a fine crowd,...the haves,....and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

Did you notice

I just covered before the war.I also didnt have the 70s,80's.Considering I lost a friend to IED I do know about them.Try to pay attention.Save your talking points for someone else.

Hey Chuckles...

are you saying there was IED's prior? Once again you show complete ignorance. Haven't the slightest clue concerning force on force do you? Heh, that's what I thought. What exactly qualifies you for discussion fighting, other than trying to get a bag of cheetos open?

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

SS75

"What exactly qualifies you for discussion fighting, other than trying to get a bag of cheetos open?"

:D !!

Twaddle's keyboard is probably orange and gooky..... yuck. And rumor has it he's a "big" man. Probably engages in these battles 8-10 times a night.

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

Sua, here's a quote about the effect of the Iraq war on

terrorists: (from Thomas Ricks book, FIASCO, pp377-8)

"In June 2004, the bipartisan 9/11 commission.......released its report, which concluded, unanimously, that while there had been contacts beetween al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it had seen no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship." Instead, by theend of 2004, the US intelligence community would conclude that the invasion had turned Iraq into a new breeding ground for a fresh generation of tougher, more professional Islamic extremist terrorists."(FIASCO,pps377-8)

 

So, son, here is evidence that says that anyone fighting in Iraq has made the Islamic extremist terrorist problem WORSE! So, you may have the correct anaogy regarding the bush pygmy but it represents you much more than I. Think on this, son.

Professor Truly Nuts

FIASCO is:

a) totally written by an anti-war liberal

b) came out in 2004

Nutty, I really implore you to pull yourself out of the deep past. You love referencing old information, and you go on and on about history. Stop it, already.

Debate MSM bias, or currently what's going on in Iraq, or GW, or whatever. Enough of this, please.

Thanking you in advance,

Monsieur Shy

ps: and put away those Cheetos and eat a proper meal for a change.

 

Dana Perino and Newsbusters gals will look great in Shywear

(*NB guys, too)

Mr Shy, can you give evidence that the 9-11

commission, a bipartisan commission, did NOT hold these views????

But........if you really don't want to know the truth.......smear the messenger....seems to be the modus operandi here at NB......give no counterexamples.....smear the messenger....don't have links..... Son, , maybe you should go correct the record or give something to counter the evidence I've presented. C'mon, Mr Shy . Don't be so immature. Please provide an example to counter my assertions, backed up with evidence.

 

acumen, i'm a major Who fan AND I've personally shook hands with

Pete Townsend at a restaurant prior to them playing at the Hollywood Bowl. Got his autograph as well. My wife and daughter met him also.

acumen, Whoooo are you, who-who,who-who, I really wanna know....

That's pathetic, "Perfesser" Plagiarist

Attempting to make yourself seem more important because you've shaken the hand of someone is immaturity on the level of an insecure teen-ager.

here's a 2005 WP article showing an increase in terrorism

http://www.washingto...

Terrorism incidents increased after the invasion. I don't have recent statistics. You don't provide any cause effect evidence to show the war has made us safer. So, you are a perpetrator of the same faulty logic when you claim a connection between the Iraq war and providing freedom to citizens. Show me the direct cause-effect relationship.

Wrongo, Talking Point

You really need to learn how to read before you try to debate anything here, Talking Point. 

So, you are a perpetrator of the same faulty logic when you claim a connection between the Iraq war and providing freedom to citizens.

Try to prove where I said that in my post to you.

You are totally reading deficient...either that or obtuse (oh wait, you claimed that yourself the other night, hmmmm). 

Didn't I tell you I wasn't interested in your deflecting questions?  Hmmm, yes, I did. 

We need a better class of troll, here.

 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

I made the assumption. You are inconsistent with your criticisms

when you criticize my assumptions while making your own assumptions. My main point that you have not refuted is that US foreign policy with Iraq has F^*^ed the Iraqis according to the historical record. I'm not reading deficient. You ASSUME this because I will not answer your questions in a way you want. Too bad!

Poor reading deficient Talking Point

Ah, so not only are you reading deficient (and apparently kind of sensitive about me pointing out that little short coming), you also make assumptions.

No need, dude. 

Let me spell this out for you.  There was not one thing about my first post to you on this thread that required any assuming.  You made a statement, I challenged you to do back it up, proving the cause and effect. 

You failed.   

You compounded your failure by making an assumption (stupid to admit it, tho), and once again, ascribing a statement to me which I didn't make.

I don't assume you're reading deficient, you've neatly proved that, by your posts.

Too bad, so sad.  Now, as much fun as I've had batting you around here, I simply must run.

We need a better class of troll, here.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Again, you make an incorrect assumption that I am reading

Deficient. Let's find out who's right and who's wrong once and for all.

Provide a paragraph describing a story or a historical event. Create some questions based on the story that can be agreed upon by anyone:EX: A red car was being driven by a racist moron.

Q: Who was the driver of the car??? ANS: a racist moron.

We can prove once and for all how reading deficient I am. You confuse reading deficient with answering your question in a way I choose. If you don't like my answers, don't ask the questions.

And how many of those

And how many of those incidents occured on in the 50 states? 

P. Talking Point's a loon, Pesky

But I bequeath him to you....gotta run.

Enjoy....liberal leaps of illogic abound w/the Talking Point.

Good to see ya. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

You too, Blonde.  That pic

You too, Blonde.  That pic of Rumsfeld gets them going, huh?

and your cause effect /connection showing that the Iraq

war is the reason why there has been no terrorism in 50 states is...........???????(by the way, do you consider arson, murder, rape examples of terrorism???)

Here's the situation...

You've already admitted to never being associated with the military, so logic would prevail that you shut you pie hole about military operations, and secondly you obviously don't have a clue about AT/CT or the definition of terrorism. Another reason where logic should prevail...SHOULD.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Sua, I bet I can state your definition for terrorism.

Terrorism is any atrocity committed by the enemy. Any atrocity committed by the US is called "collateral damage." Since you feel so strongly about the "war on terror", should someone who bombs a civilian jetliner be called a terrorist? And should action be taken against any nation that harbors terrorists? The terrorist who blew up a jetliner was Luis Posada Carilles and he blew up a CUBAN civilian jetliner. Is he a terrorist? If so, the US refuses to extradite him to stand trial. But , I thought the US was fighting terrorists???

One more thing. All this war on terror has cost maybe 500 to a tril lion dollars and lots of deaths and casualties. Have we captured Bin Laden? Have we captured the anthrax killer? Do we have any suspects? Your arguments about defending freedom by being in Iraq fail miserably. ZERO evidence of any cause effect between Iraq and being safe in the US. ZERO EVIDENCE!

Obviously you can't...

Any atrocity committed by the ememy? You are a clown. Now it is clear your utter disdain for the U.S. For a professor you're not that bright.

National? Trans-National? State Supported? Non-State Supported? Domestic? Political? Idealogical?

"the calculated use of violence; or the threat of violence to attain goals--political, religious, or ideological in nature--by instilling fear or using intimidation or coercion. Terrorism involves a criminal act, often symbolic in nature, intended to influence an audience beyond the immediate victims."

So Carilles did this on behalf of the above mentioned?

The notion that terrorism is the "calculated use of violence" not only indicates that terrorist acts are planned well in advance of their occurrence, it also hints at the concept of international cooperation between groups for support. The mention of the "criminal" nature of terrorist acts serves to remove the political basis, and thereby the moral legitimacy, from beneath the group or individuals who commit them.

A terrorist group is any organization that uses terrorism in a systematic way to achieve its goals. This naturally leads back to a discussion of perspectives and definitions, since many oppressive governments worldwide have practiced terrorist policies while at the same time receiving support from Western nations, including the United States.

Some would say that by the definition presented above, George Washington and the founding fathers of our country who fought the Revolutionary War with the British were terrorists. Using a simplistic perspective centering around the unconventional hit-and-run tactics used by the Continental Army, this point could be legitimately argued. However, historical accounts of this conflict do not contain any mention of operations planned and conducted by the officers of the army in which innocents were intentionally injured or murdered.

A state-directed group's activities are conducted primarily at the direction of a controlling state. In fact, the group may be an element of that state's security organization. Just as a group that acts as part of the controlling state's security forces can be described as being state directed, it can also be described as being "establishment" in its long-range objectives. Groups labeled "international," using the previous labeling technique, can at times be called state-directed groups as well. An example of this type of terrorist group is As-Sai-go, a military unit of the PLO that is supported, manned, and led by elements of the Syrian Army but operates out of Lebanon.

A state-supported group receives substantial outside support, but its actions are autonomous. In some cases the supporting state attempts to place requirements on the group for receipt of its aid. A state-supported group will not let this happen. If it does, we call it a state-directed group. The most important characteristic of a state-supported group is its willingness to accept support from any source as long as it is not linked to specific direction.

The final label that is placed on some groups is that of non-state supported. By nature, most terrorist groups must gather support from various sources. That limits the number of groups that fall into this category. Those that do are usually insurgent movements that operate the most serious threat to the stability of the establish government.

Need any more insight?

While you sit there downing ho-hos and swilling mountain dew, while the actions of better men than yourself achieve, I can understand that you would be envious. Offer is still open to take off the apron and come on over. You bring nothing to the table of effort and offer nothing more than sock puppet spin, typical. I understand the frustration, and you keep using "we" like you're actually contributing. You spew all this crap about the U.S. screwing the Iraqi people, yet we (not you) go out and have completed hundreds through the PRT.

You portray the angry little man who has a problem with those of us (once again not you) who are willing to place themsleves in harms way and assist those in need and recovery.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Sua Sponte 75

Working the graveyard NuttyP-smackdown shift.

We salute you!

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

and the "shock and Awe" initiated by the US

fits into an example of terrorism committed by one state against another. Oh, this is called 'war' and therefore gets legitimated as an act of terrorism in the minds of those who need technical definitions to claim terrorism. I enjoy blogging with you rightwing dogmatists, just for your information so your characterization for me is a little off.

I am angry at how convoluted legal definitions and pure power motives have replaced the constitution and values of justice for all.

You are no better a man than I, despite your claims. Soldiers like you who talk about defending my freedoms forget that science teachers like me provide future engineers and scientists who create all the weapons and protective gear to make you safe. Otherwise, you'd be fighting with swords and knives. Think on it , son.

here's the proof

after the invasion of Iraq, there was a dramtic increase of terrorism in Iraq, especially on US troops using IED and other devices. There has been a dramatic increase of suicide bombers directed against US soldiers nad their allies using various terrorist methods like car bombs, kidnapping murders. There's your proof of a cause-effect increase between the US invasion and worldwide terrorism.

Your proof that there has

Your proof that there has been an increase of worldwide terrorism is all the attacks on forces in Iraq?  I wouldn’t quite consider that worldwide, but OK.

The reason attacks increased after the invasion is because all the bad guys who would like to kill us here went to Iraq to kill the “infidels”.

HPD analogy

Really?  Профессор Правда says that worldwide terrorism has increased since the war?

Well, allow me to call Mayor Bill White here in Houston, and tell him to immediately disband our city's PD as they only increase the city's crime rate... 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Unsane, feel free to comment on this excerpt

from Thomas Ricks book, FIASCO, pps377-8:

In June, 2004, the bipartisan 9-11commission.............released its report, which concluded, unanimously, that while there had been contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it had seen no evidence of " a collaborative operational relationship." Instead, by the end of 2004, the US intelligence community would conclude that the invasion had turned Iraq into a new breeding ground for a fresh generation of tougher, more professional Islamic extremists.(FIASCO, pps 377-8)

Looks like my assertions stating that invading Iraq was counterproductive to fighting Islamic extremist terrorists has supporting evidence. "a BREEDING GROUND FOR............TOUGHER,MORE PROFESSIONAL ISLAMIC EXTREMIST TERRORISTS. I guess my claim that soldiers in Iraq are't fighting for my freedom, and there is NO cause-effect relationship between the Iraq war and keeping us "safe". Think on it, sonny.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN,

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.......

You are talking piont me to death...

Substance Professor...There is no substance to you argument right now.  Things are going in the right direction and yes you have to PAY people to do the job. 

Show me proof that we will use soldiers to make the Iraqis do our will once the Govenment is on it's feet.  I have seen interviews with Iraqis who have said they will not allow us to "occupy" Iraq.  We will leave when the job is done.

The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

if we plan to leave when the job is done,

why are we building huge embassies and bases that really suggest otherwise?

Really?

We have embassies in nearly every country in the world.  Does that mean we’re occupiers?

We have bases in countries like Japan and Germany.  Are we still occupiers there?

You left out Cuba. Get

You left out Cuba.

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

True, CT

But that's not precisely by invitation.  ;-)  Not that I mind putting a stick in Castro's craw.  Were the lease only written so he could opt us out.  :-D

Too bad, so sad.

MassConserv... Ok, I was

MassConserv... Ok, I was terrible at making my point. For our liberal friends... If we occupy countries (to control them), then why is Cuba still such a sh*t hole?

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Gotcha, CT

I get what you meant.

BTW, by too bad, so sad, I was commenting on Castro's inability to get rid of us as he'd so sorely like.

The question is are they

The question is are they going to ivite us to stay or are we forcing them.

The answer is:  If we stay uninvited after the government is up and going fully tilt then we are going to regrat it.  The people of Iraq will go to war with us.  Once we are asked to leave and they say, "hey we got it."  Bam we need to go.   

The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

Are you really

that daft? U.N.H.I.N.G.E.D

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

if you beat down a society with enough

violence, you can get the results you want. Chomsky even said you can have a 'democracy', as long as the democracy gives the right results. US foreign policy in Iraq is ONLY concerned with US interests, and that is demonstrated with history. Why would the US allow a democracy if it resulted in a strategic weakening of our interests?

You Professor have a new Nickname.

Professor Top

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN, SPIN.......

The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

AF, good day. I stated my main point which was

that US intervention in Iraq(either directly or through support of dictators) has historically created increased misery suffering and death, a matter of historical record. Therefore, it's most reasonable to think that today's intervention will bring more of the same.

Bush's truest statements: "Our enemies are resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking of ways to harm us, and neither do we."

"Here's a nice crowd, the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

 

We supported Iraq in

the Iran/Iraq war by giving them weapons.  WHY?Try this on Iraq is the only thing standing between the middle east and them from forming the largest extreme Islamic state in the world. If Iraq fell then or if it falls now the vacuum it creates would bring about the end of a lot of allies we have now in the region.Jimmy Carters inability to realize what the fall of the Shaw, dictator or not, set up in the Middle East is a mess we have to deal with now.  With that revolution in 1999 came a lot of our problems we have today.  He should have taken action then but left it to other people to clean his mess.We have stood back and allowed the UN to dictate a policy of appeasement to terror.  The "Blame the US" crowd needs to realize that appeasement is what put Hitler in France.We will be there for a while.  Get over it.  Move on.  Give me something more then the SPIN and talking point.  And please for the love of debate, make a point and back it up, we can go point by point.

The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

AF, you are absolutely right! How about a game of chess?

actually, AF, overthrowing Mossadegh in 53 helped to create the mess we have today. In the 80's, the US policy was to play a double game, arming Iraq an then shifting to arm Iran so as to weaken both powers. Carter had the Carter Doctrine which stated that the US interests in the Middle East allow us to intervene. Now AF, as you know, all of this is like a chess game except that there are multiple players playing simultaneously against each other. I'm just stating that moral factors did not affect any US policies in Iraq. So, when people say we're in Iraq to help Iraqis, that may be true from an individual soldier's point of view, but the US policy history has only created misery, suffering and death for the Iraqi people.

another true Bushism : "it'd be a helluva lot easier to be a dictator."

another true Bushism: "Here's a fine crowd of people, the haves.....and the have mores. Some call you the elite. I call you my base."

Perspective

I realize that you believe with all your heart that the United States is the most evil, horrific nation on the planet, and will remain so until it becomes a whiny, pathetic, Nanny State whose sole purpose is to be Your Personal Pampering Agency, but it is time to study some history.

Wanna know why Mossadegh was overthrown? 

СССР.  You know, that nation to the north of there who was and is (as Россня) known to covet warm water access to the sea and the spread of communism?  Yeah, those guys.  If it didn't look like he might be angling towards them, we would have left him the hell alone.  (It didn't help that he was a "flake" to begin with, as a Leftist professor once told me, and my entire class.)

Your whine on that matter alone proves how lacking you are in the slightest bit of historical perspective.  But that doesn't matter to you...only what makes your Nanny State arrive faster, right?

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

You're a clown...

Prof, and an unhinged one at that. It was in reference to your "occupation of the U.S." statement chuckles. Regardless, just sit back and let the exertions of better men take care of business. Just another spinning BDS patient, cut and run, cut and run. As stated before, your posts are like a bush pygmy watching an airliner pass overhead at 35,000 ft. He just shrugs his shoulders and goes back to playing with his sharp stick

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Sua, let me help you with your PTSD

that's Professor Truth Derangement Syndrome: the US is an occupation army, unless you want to say that we OWN Iraq. I want to make the SMART choice and leave, thinking about the challenges of this nation in a larger context. By the way, I want every soldier to never go into a war zone unless it's absolutely critical to defend the US. Iraq never posed any threat to you, me or anyone else. Do you really think the Iraqis will follow us if we leave? Were we followed home by the Lebanese? the Vietnamese? the Somalis? These were all smart decisions that reduced the US casualties and allowed the military to fight another day. Lil awol is trashing the military, and there are many soldiers who agree with my point of view. You have no better appraisal of the value of being in iraq than I have. You just spouting right wing nonsense like a broken tape player stuck on "PLAY". You are anther example of an ignorant and arrogant rightwinger who "really knows what's happening" in Iraq. Kind of like Rummy knew about those WMD's("we know where they are...north,south, east, and west of Tikrit") or like George"slam dunk" Tenet. Or all you othr COCKSURE rightwingers, whose WMD predictions were ALL WRONG? lil awol gave Tenet the "medal of freedom" . Why? For staring a war on bad intel?? or was lil awol rewarding Tenet for serving his master and falling on his sword for him? Really, sua, you need to know who to direct your anger toward. Not me. I never would have put anyone in harm's way unless it was an absolute necessity. Keep writing your bush pygmy story.

Let help you Prof...

You obviously don't have a clue concerning the past 15 years, I'm not going to give you a history lesson in military operations, you just wouldn't get it anyhow. Your lack of military understanding is obvious also, you believe it's all kill, kill, kill and completely leave everything else out. It's apparent you have a disdain for the military, the administration and the U.S. in general. Yes, I do have a better perspective than you since I've spent the past two years here. If you want the perspective, man up, come on over and I'll meet you at BIAP. So before you start saying people don't have a perspective you might want to think about who you're talking to. For your knowledge I've been a registered Democrat my entire life, once again tipping your asshat prematurely. Your a sock puppet, surely by spewing the AWOL thing again, what time are you stuck in?

Liberals like yourself lack any objectivity, intelligence, integrity, honesty, common sense and lastly the ability to look in the mirror and recognize what an asshat you are for convoluting the integrity of our system, polluting the minds of the young and the impressionable and are asshats for tarnishing the beauty of a system that no matter how much you despise it and attempt to subvert it, it remains in place to ensure that clowns like yourself have the right to continue to do so as you wish, and at the expense of the people you express this endless contempt for.

It's people like you that make me glad I believe in God, because the thought of you and your atheistic, communist-sympathizing, welfare loving, good for nothing patchouli wearing feel good but do nothing but bitch culture rotting somewhere is sometimes the only thing that carries me through the day.

Since you are operationally igonorant you wouldn't have the slightest clue about potenial threats, the analysis of them or the courses of action.

Many Soldiers agree with you, someone who has never served that the President it trashing the military, now I know your full of crap. You want a trashed military, just go back to the Clinton years. Of course you didn't have the intestinal fortitude to serve so you would have no idea what was going on.

So the offer is still open, you feel like you want to cowboy up, jump on a transport, come on over and I'll meet you at BIAP.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

vietvet

is the viet vet the same one who testified before congress about jin-jiss kahn and rape and all the rest .. not to mention the rather tall tales from his time in the swift boats

never look a gift skunk in the tail ..

Your Evidence First

Since you were the first to allege that the majority of Iraqis hate us, it's your responsibility to prove your assertion-to demand that your debate opponent prove you wrong will get you laughed out of any debate team in the country.

FYI, if you're referring to that silly BBC/ABC poll from late summer, the methodology on that poll was flawed. They oversampled certain areas of the country to get a pre-determined result.

You demand proof, yet you

You demand proof, yet you never offer any for your own allegation..

matt, it is a matter of historical record

there are tapes of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. We are a hated occupier. For everyone's benefit, we need to leave. Withdrawal isn't defeat, it's smart policy.

Ridiculous argument

Ridiculous argument "professor".

Tell me, do you even know the story behind the picture/video?

"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps

It was the same year as the

It was the same year as the infamous Kurd-gassing, which we were apparently ok with for at least a decade.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Another weak

Another weak attempt.

"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps

Attempt at what? It's

Attempt at what? It's true

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

So what?

I thought you libs were "non-interventionist"? Are you now saying we should have taken Saddam out sooner?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

No. See my response to Dan

No. See my response to Dan below.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Very well...

Perhaps you haven't seen Dan's reply to your response below...

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MGDL, Odierno gave a very self serving statement

which tries to paint the US occupation in a positive light.

Why would I accept the words of a general of an occupying power

when every past historical event paints exactly the opposite picture?

I don't know the date of this comment, but had Odierno said something really displeasing the Bush government, he would probably be a retired general.

Jason, Saddam would still

Jason, Saddam would still be in power if he had only complied with the UN orders completely.  The USA has no problems with dictators, witness Pakistan, just as long as they are our dictators.  Not that we dont want democracy its just we understand teh balancing point of issues and when to force teh issue and when to let nature take its course.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Exactly, but it torpedoes

Exactly, but it torpedoes any rhetoric about how if we hadn't ousted Saddam the Iraqis would still be living under his jackbooted reign of terror, and therefore the war was the right thing to do. Iraqis no longer having to fear Saddam was incidental.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Jason you mistake what is

Jason you mistake what is right to do and what the nation must do as a matter of survival.  No one ever said that the war was solely about taking out Saddam so the Iraqis could be free, it was jsut one of the 17 reasons given.  Do you know what they were or have even heard them?  Sometimes the totality of the reasons make up teh action one must take and in this instance it was the past actions and future actions he might take acombined with the concerns for the Iraqi people.

We know that a free people make for better partners and allies than a people bound in tyrany.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

The Halabja attack was

The Halabja attack was March 1988.  The pic in question was taken in 1983.  Consider yourself owned. 

and after the Halabja attack, what was the US response:

ref:p114,Oil, Power and Empire by larry Everest:"NSD-26 stated that iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons or development of nuclear arms, would lead to economic and political sanctions", but these provisions were not enforced because they conflicted with overall US strategy...............after the gassing at Halabja, Secretary of state Schultz condemned the attack as "abhorrent and unjustifiable", and the Senate passed the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," which would have imposed economic sanctions on Iraq(reflecting concerns of some strategists that the Hussein regime might not be a reliable client).The Reagan and bush administrations, however, were still committed to turning Iraq into a strategic ally and blocked any action against Baghdad. US officials argued that sanctions were 'premature' because Washington needed 'solid, businesslike relations' with Iraq. As one government memo stated, 'there should be no radical policy change now regarding Iraq.' No sanctions were

imposed and the 'Genocide Act' died in Congress.

Instead, US aid and trade increased. Guaranteed US agricultural exports to Iraq peaked in 1988 at 1.1 billion. By early 1990, Iraq had become America's third leading Middle East trade partner, after Saudi Arabia and Israel, purchasing $433.6 million worth of US goods. The US, meanwhile, was importing 500,000 barrels of Iraqi oil a day by 1988."

OWNERSHIP RESCINDED!

"imposed and the 'Genocide

"imposed and the 'Genocide Act' died in Congress"

That little line I pulled from your post shows that CONGRESS blocked it, not Reagan/Bush. For Reagan to block it, it had to have passed Congress, then presented to Reagan for signature. If he chose to veto it, then Congress would have the opportunity to still make it law by a super-majority vote. Congress killed it and need I remind you that Reagan didn't have a conservative congress working with him...so you can't lay this at the feet of the Gipper.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:HE00552:@@@D&summ2=m&

"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps

Go get 'im, MG

I've had my fun for the day, but I'm outta here and can't play this weekend.

He is fun, no?  :-)

MGDL, my point has always been that

the dominant consideration for US foreign policy are US interests, and have no morality as part of the equation. An example suffices to support this: From Oil, Power, and Empire, by L. Everest, pages 106-7: "In the mid-1980's, the US still did not want either Iran or Iraq to score a decisive victory in the war. Yet it also had new concerns: the possibility of a Soviet-Iranian rapprochement after Ayatollah Khomeini's death(which would come in 1989).

In May, 1985, Graham Fuller, the CIA's National Intellignce Officer for Near East and South Asia(with assistance from Teicher), prepared a special intelligence estimate that argued for a shift in US policy toward Iran:'The US faces a grim situation in developing a new policy toward Iran,' Fuller wrote. "The Khomeini regime is faltering and may be moving toward a moment of truth; we will soon see a struggle for succession. The US has almost no cards to play; the USSR has many.'Fuller warned that whichever superpower first gained the trust of Iran's leadership was 'in a strong position to work towards the exclusion of the other' and argued it was time to make some bold moves to regain the initiative:

 

It is imperative, however, that we perhaps think in terms of a bolder---and perhaps riskier policy which will at leaast ensure greater US voice in the unfolding situation. Right now----unless we are very lucky indeed---we stand to gain nothing, and lose more, in the outcome of developments in Iran, which are all outside our control.

 

In a conclusion that laid bare the cold imperial calculus guiding US actions, Fuller wrote: "Our tilt to Iraq was timely when Iraq was against the ropes and the Islamic revolution was on a roll. The time may now come to tilt back."

........(from page 107): ".......The key issue was how to maintain US dominance in the region, not concern over the carnage of war, attacks on human rights, or spreading democracy----the principles both Democratic and Republican administrations both routinely claim as their central motivations."...............

 

rumsfeld was sent

by Reagan as a special envoy in the early 80's to improve relations with Iraq, because the loss of US ally Iran had shifted geostrategic alliances and the US wanted to contain Iran, limit Soviet influence through an alliance with Iraq. My MAIN POINT is WHAT effects did US policy have on the IRAQIS?? The historical record speaks for itself and can be seen by anyone. We didn't give a F*^* about the Iraqis, it was OUR INTERESTS that were the ONLY consideration. In the 70's, theKurds organized a rebellion against Saddam. At the time, the US assisted the kurds at the request of the shah of Iran, who wanted Saddam weakened. After settling an agreement with Saddam, the kurds were cut loose by the US, even after Kurdish leaders pleaded for help as Saddam was counterattacking and slaughtering them , the Kurds were abandoned. Henry Kissinger made this famous statement,"foreign policy should never be confused with issionary help." Under Clinton, there was a massive boycott against Iraq, resulting in an excess of half a illionn deaths. Clinton's secretary of state, Madeline Albright, stated the price wasworth it(the deaths were worth containing Saddam). The historical recored is clear, undeniable and brutal from the point of view of the Iraqis. After Gulf war I, the US forces stood around while Saddam's helicopter gunships slaughtered Iraqis. The Bush gov't cynically uses mass graves to demonstrate Saddam's brutality, forgetting that Saddam was most murderous in the 80's when we were his allies. The US couldn't give a F*^* about the Iraqi people, and they know this.

Prof, where did you take

Prof, where did you take your history courses at? Reagan was not a special envoy in the early 80's. He was president. Carter was president and ignored the Iran, and so much as gave the OK for the radical muslim to come in and over throw the goverment. Things dident work out quite the way he planed. Iran and Iraq were at war in the later 70's, and Saddam used Sarin gas on Iran, and the Kurds. Where have you been? Were you riding your bike on the day they covered current events?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Bass, read the post again. It says

rumsfeld was sent by Reagan as a special envoy to improve US iraq relations at a time when we needed an ally to replace the Shah. Most of your facts do not conflict with my facts, except that the Iran-Iraq war was in the 80's, and ended, coincidentally after a US ship(I think it was the USS vincennes or something close) shot down an Iranian civilian jetliner "accidentally", There is not a SINGLE positive action that we did for the Iraqi people from the 70's until today. Not a single thing. Our gov't couldn't give two F^**s about the Iraqis, and they've known this for years.

Professor....

I see. Upon closer reading, I see what your saying. Sorry I jumped to conclusions. However I do think that the Kurds were attacked before Reagan took office. But we did need a buffer between Iran and the rest of the East. The Mulla there was intent on spreading out and dominating that part of the world, and was already calling the US the Great Satan. Sometimes its the lesser of two evils. And Iraq was the only ones that were willing to stand up to Iran. The up shot of it is, it is all part of Jimmy Carters legecy.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Bass, you ae correct

There were disputes(Idon't know details) regarding Iran v Iraq in the 70's when the Shah was our ally. At this point , the Shah wanted Saddam weakened at the same time that there were Kurdish uprisings. The US furnished arms to the Kurds in order to help the Shah achieve his objectives. After the Shah achieved his goals, he no longer needed the Kurds, who were cynically used to weaken Saddam's position. The US cut off aid to the Kurds, even after the Kurdish leader pleaded for help. They were no longer needed and were viciously dealt with by Saddam. Kissinger stated famously when asked why the US did this,"foreign plicy should not be confused with missionary help." By the way, there's an excellent left wing history of Iraq by Larry Everest called "oil, power and empire." It's very eye opening.

Hey "Professor"

It's not our fault the Iraqis were suckers! Stop yer whining about all the help we didn't give em. We're doing it now so STFU! wouldya!?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM, we never helped iraqis except we

helped kill them with our cynical policies. No whining, just a matter of historical record.

MM, we never helped iraqis except we

helped kill them with our cynical policies. No whining, just a matter of historical record.

shaking hands with Saddam -

shaking hands with Saddam - so what?

Yeah, I'm sure Rummy took a

Yeah, I'm sure Rummy took a shower afterwards so what's the problem?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

And I'm sure he did a

And I'm sure he did a heckuva job getting rid of the Sunni stench.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

I was thinking more of the "Murderous Dictator stench"

But you are free to be as bigoted as you like...

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Sunnis, murderers, what's

Sunnis, murderers, what's the difference, right?

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Whaddya want me to say?

In Iraq all Sunnis are not murderers but all Dictators were Sunni?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

hehe, good one. I don't

hehe, good one. I don't know, at this point I'm just messing around, no agenda.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

well absolutely

well absolutely all Muslims are really secret terrorists hell bent on world-wide sharia law we do know that much from jimbo and co:)

Withdrawal from the

Withdrawal from the battlefield in the face of the enemy is the very definition of defeat.  It is failure to win.

de·feat (d-ft)

tr.v. de·feat·ed, de·feat·ing, de·feats

1. To win victory over; beat.

2. To prevent the success of; thwart: Internal strife defeats the purpose of teamwork.

3. Law To make void; annul.

n.

1. The act of defeating or state of being defeated.

2. Failure to win.

3. A coming to naught; frustration: the defeat of a lifelong dream.

4. Law The act of making null and void.

NL207, I haven't written to you

since you defiantly claimed newton's 3rd law was conservation of energy and ridiculed my "lack of understanding over your claim that conservation of energy and action-reaction were "the same thing'. I guess being conservative means never having to apologize for your blunders.

Withdrawing from Iraq is not the same as defeat. Simple examples should suffice: In chess, if a piece retreats, that doesn't equal the defeat of the player, only a strategy decision. Your definition is in a very narrow context of the Iraq war which is analogous to the chess piece retreat. My definition of defeat is a much broader definition, involving the future health, economy and military capacity of our country. Think of us as two chess players who have different strategies for the overall future health of the country. Also think of wars as chess piece movements . The overly aggressive movement of a chess piece can ultimately cause defeat in the total game. We need to broaden our strategy and not call any smart move a 'DEFEAT'.

In chess sacrifices are

In chess sacrifices are made and peices get taken out.  So by inference you believe it is acceptable to let teh Iraqi peopel be slaughtered?  I guess to you peopel are nothing more than pawns in teh game of life.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Not to mention

Not to mention that when the chess game is over, your opponent doesn’t then call all his buddies to follow you home and cut off your head while you lie sleeping.

Wait, that's not supposed

Wait, that's not supposed to happen? I guess some chess players are more hardcore than others...

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Not usually

At least outside of CSI.

the" chess" game is won when

the overall health, economy, and safety of the country is achieved. My strategy is to make a smart move by leaving Iraq, which will allow the military to recuperate, improve our economy, and improve our health and safety, in my opinion.

At least

At least you stated that this is your opinion and isn’t an undeniable fact.  I strongly disagree with your assessment of the situation.  They have already shown they won’t stay on their own shores if left alone.

The attackers on 9-11 were not from Iraq

and the planning for the attacks was not connected to Iraq. My point is to look at the total situation and evaluate the best answer given the total situation. Withdrawal from Iraq may or may not create a more dangerous condition for the US, this remains to be seen. When the US withdrew from Lebanon, the terrorists didn't follow . I see withdrawal as soon as possible as the best move for the future health and safety of the US. Let's see it another way. We spend lots of money. Is it smarter to spend it on an occupation of a country or is it wiser to spend it on enhanced intelligence, police resources, detection equipment of radiation, port security, port inspections, and anything else that would make it more difficult for a deadly attack to occur in the US. There are no simple answers. If you spend in Iraq, you neglect port security. Personally, it is not hard to imagine someone smuggling a nuclear bomb into one of our ports and detonating it with a remote device. I'd like to see much more money spent on other security measures, especially since the Iraq war has resulted in a dramatic increase of world wide terrorism.

Uh, Professor

I thought we invaded Iraq because they refused to comply with UN Resolution 1441.

Where do you get this 9-11 nonsense?

Hey Dum Prof.......

Ever heard of chasing an "Enemy"  ? 

You're dumber than Dirt........I guess when Japan attacked Pearl harbor, why the heck did we invade the Phillipines ?  Iwo Jima ? 

Why did we attack the Germans in North Africa ?

One of the lessons we learned in Viet Nam, via Laos and Cambodia, is the Enemy runs and hides (like OBL in Pakistan) ....I'm glad you ain't a President, because with you it would be an effective enemy Tactic.

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

JT, Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11

so your "chasing the Japanese" analogy doesn't apply. How many Vietcong have chased us to America? How many Somalis? How many Lebanese? Not to mention that Iraq never has been a threat to the US mainland.

PT...The anlogy sticks...first Afghanistan...then Iraq

PT....I don't wanna confuse you with Details, but one of the Terrorist we shot holes in, while he/we were in Afghanistan, fled (limping) to Iraq, and was treated in an Iraq Hospital, and proceeded to set up shop......and more followed.

We have killed 1500 terrorists (not insurgents) in Iraq every month since Jan. 2007 to present.....and who knows how many prior to that. 

Sitting in your Living Room in New York with a Rife and scope, looking out your picture window, won't automatically let you Bag a Terrorist.  You have to take your Rifle and go hunting.....and guess what, when we addressed Saddam, the Terrorists came  into Iraq in Droves...to kill the US Military, to kill Iraqi's citizens who wouldn't support them, and generally be bad guys.  They came to Iraq from all over....They're still coming to and thru Afghanistan.

And if you want to be the Friend of the Terrorists, they will kill you last......too bad the US Military is in Iraq protecting your buns so the Terrorists don't come and make Professor Truth teach Islamic Truth or DIE.....Have you no sympathy for the English lady Professor who is now being threatened with Death  ?

 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

JT, there's absolutely NO EVIDENCE to state that

the US occupation in Iraq is doing anything other than making lil awol and his war profiteering buddies filthy rich, and driving our country into bankrupcy. We could have defended this country far more wisely with pernament inspections and bettr port security and detectin equipment. All of this homeland security is more money pissed away for pie in the sky, Maginot line solutions that are useless. After the Iraq invasion, terrorism went up. I notice nobody at NB mentions the number one source of the terrorists: THE SAUDIS! Who funds worldwide madrassas? the SAUDIS! Who supported the Taliban? the Saudis! Which country provides 40+% of the terrorists entering Iraq? the Saudis! Who has been close friends and business partners with the Bush family for years? the SAUDIS! Who has one of the world's most repressive gov'ts? the

Saudis??? Who do conservatives blame the most for their stupid choices? the LIBERALS!

PT

PT, I agree that lots more needs to be done to help secure out ports and borders.   But this isn’t a case of wasting money in Iraq which could instead be spent on that.  There are plenty of bloated government programs that could be whittled down to provide more money for border and port security. 

I supported the need to go into Iraq, for the reason the CA stated below, among a wide range of others that most seem to have forgotten when we didn’t find a huge warehouse filled to the rafters with nuclear weapons and other WMD’s.  I don’t think the entire war has been executed as well as it could have been, heck… they screwed the pooch quite a few times.  The bottom line is, leaving Iraq now, without a clear sign that we’ve won would have the worst possible outcome.  The radicals fighting us there and elsewhere around the world would see our withdrawal as a sign of weakness and a lack of resolve that would only embolden them to attack us with more force on our own soil.

You may refuse to admit it, but there is no doubt that kicking their butts over there has kept them busy enough to prevent them from getting another cheap shot in over here.

Isn't

Saddam being dead, a new government/constitution, and all the other success people here love talking about like soccer-celebrations a bunch of clear signs we've won this war (ignore my fiscal comments for purposes of this question, please)? If we left Korea, would we lose the Korean War?
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

}}---> Leaving Korea

Sarc, I think if we left Korea it would fall to the North, if not to the Chinese.

If we left Europe, it would eventually fall again to the Germans (or Russia, whichever is faster)

It's that "foreign entanglements" thing some peacenik warned us about.

Sarc

Sarc, I’m talking about Islamic radicals and more specifically ME Islamic radicals who are culturally more likely to view anything other than a good a$$-whoopin’ as a sign of weakness on our part.  Unless we completely subdue them, they will think they’ve won. 

I honestly never thought this war was going to be quick, or at least I didn’t believe that we’d be out of Iraq in a couple years.  I knew from history’s perspective that we’d be there in some capacity for a very long time.

And to answer your last questions, considering the Korean War never actually ended, yes we would. 

We’ve tried isolationism in the past.  It doesn’t work.  Do we piss some people off by being the world’s police force?  Yes.  I’d rather have our guys out there as the cops projecting power than any of the other alternatives.  I admire the hard work they do and the noble reasons behind it.

Dan, actually it's the Iraqis

who have been treated like chess pieces by US policy, since the 70's, according to the historical record.

But you really dont

But you really dont understand, we are there and it is our resposibility to give the Iraqis a fighting chance, unlike you who by pulling out before the job is done wants them slaughtered to each man and woman.  The USA plays governments but when we stup in we must stay and clean up our problems, its called resposibility.  Something that you, by your comments, are not aquainted with.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Dan, we are not there to give the Iraqis anything other than

death, misery and horror. I explained using historical facts that every move the US has made hs resulted in Iraqi misery, suffering and death. Let's recap:

Kurds are betrayed by the US in 70's. Kissinger says "foreign policy should not be confused with missionary work."

Iran-Iraq war in 80's was welcomed and aided by the US. Result was

a million casualties.

Saddam rules with an iron fist in the 80's WHEN HE'S OUR ALLY!

US removes Saddam from Kuwait in GWI. Shiite uprisings are brutally stopped with helicopter gunships as US forces watch and do NOTHING.

1990's Clinton boycotting of Iraq causes over half a million deaths. Madeline Allbright, Clinton's sec. of Stae, says the price (all those dead Iraqis) was worth containing Saddam.

2003 US "liberates" Iraq. Paul Bremer replaces Jay Garner as head of CPA and OUTLAWS DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS! I'll repeat"Bremer OUTLAWS DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS!!!!

Bremer write directives PRIVATIZING ALL IRAQI INDUSTRIES, except OIL(there was a fear of massive uprising if this was done) (the REAL REASON for the invasion would have been exposed.)

Bremer also issues directives freeing foreign corporations to remove all profits from Iraq.

Bremer also gave immunity to all foreign corporations from Iraqi law

2003-present: over a million dead Iraqis, over four million refugees

over 35 thousand deaths and injuries of US soldiers.

thousands of PTSD victims.

Conclusions: US policy never did give two F**^S over the Iraqis!!!A matter of historical record.

In chess, the retreat of a

In chess, the retreat of a piece is a single "warrior" not the entire army.

"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps

You are still as confused

You are still as confused as ever.

Newton's three laws: 

1. Inertia -- Things that aren't moving --> conservation of inertia.  Inertia must be overcome by the application of work [force x distance] to drive bodies into motion.

3. Energy -- Things that are moving --> conservation of energy Kinetic energy cannot be destroyed.  Work must be done on moving bodies to bring them to rest.

2.  f=ma --  the means for changing objects from state 1 to state 3 and back again.

You just can't get past the textbook description.  ==>  You probably don't actually understand how it works.  When I used to have students, an infallible indicator of their conceptual understanding was their ability to correctly restate a principle in a different form.

Interesting chess analogy.  You apparently think that removing all of your pieces from the chess board while leaving the opponent's pieces in place will somehow produce victory.

NL207, cite a physics department that holds your opinion.

Make it a REPUTABLE one, not Creationism University.

Please tell me their location and phone number so I can call them up and set them straight. You STILL are stating incorrect info regarding Newton's third law. Go find a physics book,(try Resnick and Haliday) or go to Hyperphysics and click on the appropriate bubble. Whatever you do, stop trying to BS me with complete NONSENSE!

Isint Resnick and Haliday a

Isint Resnick and Haliday a high school book? Seems to me we are some what beyond high school, and the simplified explainations.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bassndude, Halliday and

bassndude,

Halliday and Resnick is a pretty standard college level text. I've used it in my classes.

NL207, I hate to disagree

NL207,

I hate to disagree with you, but ...

1) As far as I know, there is no physical quantity defined as "inertia". If there is one, let me know what its units are. I think some people use it interchangeably with "momentum" - maybe that's how you are using it?

2) I've always viewed Newton's First Law as just a special case of the Second Law (for acceleration equal to zero) and the Second Law can, in a sense, be derived from energy concepts - but not really "conservation of energy". Here, I'm talking about giving the Lagrangian for a system (which is defined in terms of the system's energy) and then minimizing the action that is derived from it.

3) There is no "Conservation of Kinetic Energy"

4) Newton's Third Law is a consequence of "Conservation of Momentum".

hydro, here are the 3 laws + LOCOE

1)inertia which states an object in motion stays in motion unless an unbalanced force acts on it OR an object conserves its momentum

if no unbalanced forces act on it. Inertia is the resistance of an object to change in its motion. For rotating bodies, there is consevation of angular momentum unless an unbalancedTORQUE acts on the rotating body .

2nd law Force = mass X acceleration or F=Ma

or you can say the acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the applied unbalanced forces acting on it.

3rd law is called action-reaction: for every action, there's and equal and opposite reaction. or for every for applied by an external agent, the agent experiences an equal (size) and opposite(direction) force. Standing on Earth, the applied force of someone on the Earth is equal and opposite to the force applied by the Earth on the person.

Conservation of energy(a specific case for conservation of mass-energy since Einstein showed that mass is another form of enrgy with E=mc^2: The total energy of a closed system is conserved even when its kinetic, potential and radiant energy components are not! or (KE + PE + heat) initial = (KE + PE + heat)final.

PT, 1) Like I said, there

PT,

1) Like I said, there is no defined physical quantity called "inertia". If there is, let me know what it is. And as I said in my previous post, the First Law just seems like a special case of the Second Law - if the total Force or Torque on an object or system is zero, then its acceleration (linear of angular) is zero.

2) Regarding the Third Law - um, ok - like I said, it's basically a consequence of Conservation of Momentum.

3) Thanks for the summary about Conservation of Energy. I didn't really need it, but thanks anyways.

(By the way, "Professor", I teach physics at the college level, so I don't really need you to explain this stuff to me.)

Text book answers. Not

Text book answers.

Not the only way to express the situation.

Another way to express Newton's laws of motion is thus:  The velocity of any object possessing the property of mass must remain constant if the sum of the forces acting on that object is 0.  If they are not zero, its velocity will change according to the relationship F=ma.   This says the same as the Newton expressed with his formulation of the laws of motion.  You seem unable to recognize that force cannot materialize out of nowhere.  This is what Newton was talking about explicitly with 'equal and opposite reaction'.  He was saying external forces acting upon bodies must draw their energy from somewhere, in which location an equal and opposite reaction will occur, and thereby energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Conservation of energy also applies to other systems besides Newtonian systems, but NOT to Einstein's famous equation.  That was fundamentally revolutionary.  It equates MASS with ENERGY.    Einstein was the first to describe the law governing the rate at which matter could be converted into energy and vice versa.

Newtonian systems can equate kinetic energy[1/2 m x v^2] which must be conserved with work [joules, ergs or foot-pounds].  Newtonian mechanics can even relate potential energy to work, but it cannot equate mass with energy.

NL207, I know you were

NL207,

I know you were responding to PT, but what the heck?

As I said, I'm pretty sure the Newton's Third Law can be derived from Conservation of Momentum. I'm too tired to really think about it and too lazy to look it up.

There is a relativistic version of Conservation of Energy. I'm not sure if you were denying this or not, but I'm just putting it out there.

In your last paragraph, you are talking about the Work-Energy Theorem which relates work to change in kinetic energy. It's called a "theorem" since it doesn't really introduce any new physics beyond the basic definition of work, kinetic energy and the kinetic equations of motion. Basically, take the definition of work, combine with a kinetic equation and do some algebra and it turns out to be equal to the change in kinetic energy.

hydro, the units of momentum are

Kg *meters/second in the MKS(meter/kilogram/seconds) system of measurement.

PT, I asked NL for the

PT,

I asked NL for the units of "inertia", not momentum (on the assumption he wasn't using the terms interchangeably).

hydro, inertia IS momentum

so it's units are units of momentum. Imagine sliding on an ice rink. Your inertia is the same as your momentum which is mass x velocity.

PT, Find me a text that

PT,

Find me a text that defines "inertia" as "momentum".

As I said in a previous post (did you actually read it, by the way?), some people use the two interchangeably, but that isn't a standard usage. There is no "Conservation of Inertia", for example.

And just so you don't get even more confused, no, I'm also not talking about moments of inertia (which have units of kg m^2, just in case you were curious).

hydro, I don't have a text reference

but it seems that when you describe the inertia of an object in a particular ref. frame, you could sub "momentum" and still be correct.

If you were to describe the word inertia, it's the resistance to change in the motion of an object. As an object increased it's momentum, it would also increase it's inertia. I think the conservation of momentum law could also be called conservation of inertia(inertia is conserved for a body that has a net external force of zero acting). I know the expression "conservation of inertia" has never been used, but I think it would be valid and would be equivalent to the conservation of momentum principle.

PT, You assert that

PT,

You assert that inertia is momentum but when I ask you to back that up, you can't. The reason why is because you won't find any physics texts in current use which define inertia as momentum. If you don't believe me, ask any physics teacher or professor.

Inertia isn't a defined quantity in physics. That's the fact of the matter. Any kid who's taken any intro class to physics could tell you that. Since inertia isn't a defined quantity, your argument for "inertia" being the same as "momentum" is kind of pointless.

If, for the sake of argument, you want to say "When I use the term inertia, I mean momentum", ok. But then why not just use the term momentum - a term that does have a universally accepted definition?

Really - if you can't simply accept that you are wrong on this, you have issues.

bunk momentum, which must

bunk

momentum, which must be conserved in any elastic collision between solid bodies, is mass x velocty.  kilogram-meters per second.

inertia is mass --> kilogram.  the resistance to acceleration by force.

Moment of inertia is measured in Kilogram-squaremeters and is not technically Newtonian.  Euler is credited with this.

NL207, Again, sorry for

NL207,

Again, sorry for butting in but ...

Inertia isn't really a defined quantity in physics. If you want to say it's the same as mass, ok, but that isn't the standard definition.

Also, momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions as well.

Professor Truth: I am

Professor Truth: I am dubious of those who blog or preach aginst the wars who claim to be veterans of Vietnam. There are 1,002,511 veterans, having served in the US armed forces in Vietnam. This is according to estimates of the 2000 census.
During this census there were 13,853,027 who falsely claimed to have served in country. This means that 4 out of 5 of those who claim to have served in Vietnam, did not. That number would be difficult to justify being as how only 9,087,000 served on active duty during the official Vietnam era. And only 2,709,918 served in uniform, in country. Forgive me if I am skeptical. If I felt like taking the time are reading such clap trap, I am sure I could pick up on a few items that would determin if he really was a Viet-vet. But you have to admit that seeing as how 80% of those who claim to be, are liers, makes it hard not to be.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Bass, you have a legit point

the name of the blogger at newshounds is called "woke" and I'm sure you might be able to identify whether or not he's on the up and up. I never served and I'm surprised that so many would falsely claim to be vets. I'll take your numbers for now but I really think you should double check the sources for that along with reasons why people would falsely claim to be vets.

Professor....

Those numbers were taken from the 1995 and 2000 US Census. I to was suprised that so many would claim to be vets. I have no idea why, unless it was to get sympthy from someone. I wouldent know. I do know that I have met a plenty of false vets. I would wonder if I myself had served, but I get my disability check every month from the VA. I sometimes feel guilty about it, but my wife sayes I earned it, so I make my boat payment and go on. 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Bass, I'm sure if you posted with this guy

who goes by "woke" at newshounds, you guys might reach some compromise. From woke's postings, he's an ex viet vet who has supported other vets in need. He seems like a very decent guy, he just has very left views.

You may be right Professor.

You may be right Professor. But I have very right views. Vets that need help can get it in any number of places. I have helped a few in my megar way. Vets stick together for the most part.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass, woke is a very decent guy

and from his posts, does a lot to help vets. That's pretty important. One's politicsshould come second. I think it's beneficial to get lots of diverse info so that everyone knows who's trying to make their lives better. I think woke is one of these guys. I use him because there are ex vets of all political persuasion. I, personally want vets to get topp care and timely care and I don't care if my taxes go up to pay for this since this must be a shared sacrifice.

Oooh, I've got a post in

Oooh, I've got a post in "newshounds". I R SPESHUL!

Prof explain urself and

Prof explain urself and include links for your assertions, or are you jsut going to spout off like my teen does and says it is too.  Im saying you do the later because my highest esteem of you is that of whale droppings.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Dan, here's a hypothetical situuation

Assume the US was invaded an occupied by a foreign nation. Assume that this nation had in the past supported a brutal dictator which had murdered tens of thousands of US citizens and this dictator had been completely supported by this occupying power. Assume that part of the population had tried to rebel after an earlier invasion by this same occupying power occurred, and that the occupier sat and watched as citizens of the US were slaughtered by this hated dictator. Now, assume this occupying power had, in the past, created a deadly boycott on the US, resulting in at least half a million deaths. Also, assume the secretary of state had stated this price was worth it, because the occupying power who originally propped up the hated dictator said they wanted to contain this dictator. Also, assume the occupying power had in the past, fomented a murderous war between the US and Canada in order to weaken both nations, and had openly helped this murderous dictator murder US citizens. also, imagine that this country organizes death squads. Imagine that the US has massive amounts of depleted uranium dust which causes the cancer and leukemia rates of children to spike dramatically. Imagine that the occupier builds a huge walled city that has all necessary resources and luxuries, while US citizens are left with a few hours of elctricity per day, and ruined infrastructure. Imagie that after the invasion of the occupier, 4+ million U
citizens are forced to flee, and there are more than a million US casualties.Now, imagine that this occupying power privatizes all your public industries, attempts to steal trillions of dollars of natural resources using quislings to sign off on policies which sell off those resources at pennieson the dollar, allows private mercenaries to kill anyone who they feel is a threat while transporting technocrats around the country, tells the people of the US that we really want to help you. What is your response?

The historical record is irrefutable that the US couldn't give a F*^* about the Iraqi people. That's why they hate us.

Your understanding of the

Your understanding of the history of the Iran-Iraq war and subsequent events is severely lacking. You've been making too many assumptions.

"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps

MGDL, the US gave arms to both sides

for the simple reason that we wanted both powers weakened, a strategic move on our part. Much of this strategy was for the purpose of containing the USSSR. My point is tha we couldn't give a flying F*^# about the Iraqis, we will let them get murdered if our strategic interests are advanced, according to the historical record. Please provide evidence to contradict my comments. My info comes from the book,"Oil,Power,and Empire" or you can try William Blum's book, "Killing Hope", or you can look at Noam Chomsky's works. It's a matter of historical record. We F*^^ED the IRAQIS again and again and again. Now you know, "why they hate us."

The Iran and Iraq war

The Iran and Iraq war started whie the Jimmy Carter administration was in. It wasent untill 1982, (Reagan), that the US got directly involved and that was to protect the shipping of oil. Iran was attacking oil tankers of nuteral nations. The US policy was that any tanker flying the US flag would be protected, and sent in the fleet, (7th). From that point, any tanker that was attacked flying the US flag that was attacked would be seen as an attack on the US. Iran seemed to think it was no big deal. It was 1982 that the US started backing Iraq with intelligence, ecnomic aid and weapons.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

What weapons?

bassndude - Weapons like what?  MiGs and Mirages?  T-72s?  Exocet missiles?  I had NO idea that these were of U.S. manufacture... 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Chomsky????

Puh-leeze!

Besides, you STILL haven't proved the Iraqis hate us. Please try again.

First off Saddam was an

First off Saddam was an Iraqi and not some occupier.  We liberated the people from this dictator.  You are assuming we wanted to stand by and watch the Iraqi suffer and be slaughtered.  As in anything there is a time and place.  President Bush wanted to go into Iraq but the rest of the Alliance was not ready and unfortunately Bush listened to world opinion.

 

The rest of your diatribe is pure sqadush.  Saddam is responsible for that and no one else.  It was not the USA but the UN who blockaded Iraq and prevented money for Saddam.

 

I will agree with one assertion “US couldn't give a F*^* about the Iraqi people” to the point that the USA is first and foremost in the USA affairs always as any government cares about its own affairs.  Only when the action is in its own interests will a country commit to anything or action

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Dan, we "liberated" Iraqis from their lives.

Saddam was our guy in the 80's. We fomented the Iran-Iraq war, resulting in a million casualties. We abandoned the kurds in the 70's when they no longer served their purpose of weakining Saddam(Kissinger stated after pleas from the Kurdish leader were ignored "foreign policy should not be confused with missionary help"). After invading in gulf war I, we allowed Saddam to crush the rebellions that were occurring, then cynically point to the mass graves of these slaughtered victims as an example of Saddam's brutality, knowing full well we helped by ignoring the slaughter. Clinton's policies in the 90's resulted in the deaths of half a million Iraqis, Madeline Albright stated the price was worth it on 60 minutes. This latest illegal invasion resulted in 4+ milion refugees and over a million deaths. We are occupiers, and most Iraqis want us to leave .

We fomented the iran-iraq war?

Silly me I thought it was the centuries old conflict over the boundary at the Shatt al-'Arab River.

by foment, I mean we encouraged war

by supplying arms and logistics . We actually were happy the war was a stalemate, since it was weakening both sides, the preferred strategy for the US. A million or more casualties occurred from this.

My MAIN POINT IS that we F*^^^ED the IRAQIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN for our benefit, a matter of historical record. Such is the case for our occupation today, regardless of how much the Iraqis want us to leave. The criminal Bush policies continue to F*^* the Iraqis today.

Check the Record

This latest was a

This latest was a resumption of the war and not an "illegal invasion" as there was not any declaration of peace only a cease fire.  Under those terms any country a party to the 1991 Iraq war has teh right to rsume war activies if the conditions were not met, and they were not.

As far as blaming the the casualties on the USA, it is like a killer blaming society for his actions.  The only one to blame is Saddam.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Dan, the killer was aided and abetted by the US.

Saddam was our guy in the 80's. Hecommitted his worst murders during the time we were helping him with logistics. Even after the gassing of the Kurds was known by congress, we actually gave him foreign aid after the fact. We were his accomplice. It someone puts a knofe in someone while they are held down by anotherr person, both parties are complicit in the murder. We helped Saddam murder Iraqis. A matter of historical record. Bush policies continue to F**^ them.

It's all about the oil and bases.

Perceptions of misconceptions (or downright propaganda)

It's all about the oil  Feel free to study some geography sometime, Профессор.  If it were ALL ABOUT THE OIL, the United States would have forcibly added Alberta as the 51st state long ago.  It would have been a much easier enterprise.

We would also have invaded Mexico, made damn sure Hugo Chavez was taking his dirt nap, and perhaps added Colombia and Ecuador to the list of nations amalgamated together to form a Northern South American Protectorate or somesuch thing.

Yet, NONE has happened.

Additionally, if you bother reading a globe, you would see that Europe - not the United States - would be the prime beneficiary of Mideast oil, as would Asia and other Eastern Hemispheric locales.  Last time I checked, only 15% or so of our oil comes from the Mideast. 

Additionally, if you bothered reading your history, you'd see that Iraq's two primary allies were France and the USSR.  Hence the Iraqi military using vast amounts of French and Soviet hardware. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

It's about oil and military bases

here is a link to a jan 2007 world oil reserves:

http://www.eia.doe.g...

The mideast reserves are abut 56% of the world's total:739 for total mideast v 1317(total) in billions of barrels.

India and China are reapidly expanding their economies, creating a need to maintain a secure oil supply, especially since we use about a quarter of the Earth's oil. Historical staements regarding the critical value of middle east oil are a matter of historical record. Here are a few quotes:

Jan 2003 WSJ":executives of US oil companies are conferring with officials from the white house, DOD, and the State dept to figure out how best to jump-start Iraq's oil industry following a war, industry officias say. With oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's, Iraq would offer enormous opportunity should a war topple Saddam Hussein. [Iraq] could be producing six million barrels a day within five years" ....The Bush administration is eager to secure Iraq's oilfield"(page 259, Oil, power and Empire, by larry Everest)

more from same page"They say Cheney's staff hosted an informational meeting with industry executives in October, with Exxon Mobil corp,
Chevron Texaco Corp, Conoco Phillips and Halliburton among the companies represented"

from Thaddeus Herrick"US Oil wants to work in Iraq Concerns discusshow to raise Output after a Possible War" WSJ ,Jan 17th, 2003

prof, The right wing

prof,

The right wing corporate controlled media will never discuss about oil being the reason for this silly war!

 

some of the brainwashed will then ask why dont we invade canada?

 

 

 

A free press is one of the first things to go in a totalitarian government. Montana Lyons

DanMan2 (& NuttyP)

It's so true, about a country taking action with it's own interests as a priority.... WHAT A NOVEL CONCEPT!

It's one that completely eludes the left, because we're supposed to always care about "others", to the point that "others" even need to come first, which is outrageous thinking. "Others" can be any shape or size of the downtrodden... countries, nations, minorities, you name it.

Lynne Chenney simply stated to Jon Stewart, "it's in America's interests" regarding the things we're doing in the M.E. and how it relates to our safety. Jon gave this totally incredulous look, like, how could she say this. To him, it's translated into a total black-white thing, like "at the expense of others"..... that word again, "others". Not us Americans. No, we come last, apparently.

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

Mr Shy, your point never eluded me nor many on the left.

People should be aware of the choices we make and the consequences of those choices. Morality is only an afterthought in state policy. My main point was and is that the Iraqis want us out, we are occupiers, and the historical record shows we F**^ED them over and over and over. I've implied that US policy has no morality, because the historical record shows this to be true.

Mr Shy, your point never eluded me nor many on the left.

People should be aware of the choices we make and the consequences of those choices. Morality is only an afterthought in state policy. My main point was and is that the Iraqis want us out, we are occupiers, and the historical record shows we F**^ED them over and over and over. I've implied that US policy has no morality, because the historical record shows this to be true.

Профессор Правда shrieks again

Профессор, you need to grow up sometime and accept that ALL foreign relations are in fact "one country screwing another".  I for one would rather not live in the America you so crave: one that is pathetic, whiny and utterly powerless, with a military reduced to a weak arm of the International Red Cross.

Maybe its best you focus on things you might be good at, like teaching high school students how to teach. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

unsane, I'm 54yrs, and you?

You said I need to grow up. Just curious how old you are?

So your 54. So what? You still haven't grown up...

Maturity and your physical age don't always match, as your constantly remind us. I'd say your physical age is 54 years, yet your mental/emotional age is right around 54...months.

 Why should I answer that question, given your snotty attitude and your constant stream of vomit here? I'll leave you to guess.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Unsane

Let's see 54, 6'2" 280 lbs

This must be the profff 20 years ago

GoHunter08

who ever described an America pathetic, whiny and

utterly powerless. Not me! This best way to keep America strong is to not get involved in useless conflicts that create more problems than they solve. We need to build alliances, not destroy them. The America you attribute to me is more like the America that Bush is steering us toward.

 

Bush's one true comment:"Our enemies are resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking of ways to harm us, and neither do we"

Perf

You are just trolling and really getting to be totally, and truly, boring.

Bah! 

Oh, and while I'm at it....only my friends may call me "Blondie".  So while you mangle my name, leave the "ie" off it.

You're so very clever with "Blaaaand" or "Blahhhhnd"  or whatever.

Mutt.

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Nutty Prof & Blondie

Nutty,

What exactly is "we need to build alliances"??? (in your post above) I hear THAT talking point ad nauseum mostly by leftists... just another vague, "bring people together"-type slogan that means, really, nothing.

Blondie,

What started his whole "Blaaaahhh" thing anyway?

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

Dunno, Shy

The troll had a neuron shower or somesuch. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

blonde

Honestly, I do start to feel bad for the guy, maybe just a lil'.... being ganged-up on the way he is.

But heck, he chose to join up here and enter the fray with his completely opposite view of the world.

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

I take...

issue along with other troops of your continuous "we're f***ing* the Iraqi people. Regardless we are out there everyday re-establishing villages and districts through re-building efforts of which you seem to be totally clueless on. Unless you're going to go out on a limb, get off the lazy-boy and come over and contribute, cease with the "we", because "we" are accomplishing while "we" (you) handwring. Man up and come over and then tell everyone that the Iraqis want us gone, until then....

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails,at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

go challenge the historic record regarding our involvement with

Iraq. The US foreign policy is F^*^ing the Iraqis according to the historical record. We are in Iraq to privatize it's companies which Bremer did by directives, immunize foreign corporations against I raqi law, steal their oil through production sharing agreements where foreign corporations are given unfair control of Iraq's oil and would receive profits from this oil far in excess of normal contracts, and build military bases in order to have a stronger strategic presence . US foreign policy could care less what happens to the Iraqis. There is NO moral consideration in this policy. All of this is supported by the historical record.

You can...

apply that to any country. What exactly is wrong with privatizing? Giving citizens the right to manage their own is bad? Heh, socialized government run works so well. Like I said before, you aren't here, haven't been invovled in the PRT efforts at any level whatsoever, so regardless of what you feel on the squishy inside, accomplishments and missions say different. You merely present youself as a sockpuppet talking point from the kos. Strategic presense is required in many places. As said before you aren't wringing your hands over all the other places we've been for over sixty years, you merely don't like what we're accomplishing here due to extreme BDS. I'm not challenging history, I'm challenging limp wrists to stand up and support our mission. You can yak yak foreign policy all day, don't forget the onslaught of much of this was due to the "rabbit killers" ineptness, that's a historical record.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

The Historical Record

The Historical Record

 

"US foreign policy could care less what happens to the Iraqis."

You mean horrible foreign policy like:

"President Clinton says his administration is seeking ways to sell goods to Iraq to benefit the Iraqi people, without allowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction. Correspondent Deborah Tate reports from the White House."

Damn you Bill Clinton! Damn your foreign policy that couldn't care less about the Iraqis!

Here's our relationship with iraq and the UN going back to 1990.(you'll notice a few Cassus Belli in there) Oh and about those UN Sanctions.

PS-Hans Blix was never 100% satisfied.

For me.....

for me personally, your posts are like a bush pygmy watching an airliner pass overhead at 35,000 ft. He just shrugs his shoulders and goes back to playing with his sharp stick.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Dan the Man 2 is right. You

Dan the Man 2 is right. You need to back up your assertions. I'm still waiting for your reply to this: http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/invasion-iraq-was-right-thing-do-14313#comment-485391 which was my response to some ridiculous and unsupported claims you made.

Where do you get your info on the US being "hated by the majority of Iraqis." Show your cards. Link or slink.

"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps

Mgdl, I'll correct myself on my comment

about the Iraqis hating US occupiers. Hating is not a fair word, but was an assumption I made considering the past historic US_IRAQ record.

This late september WP poll is telling however:

http://www.washingto...

Alternative explanation

Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with white flag wavers like Harry Reid saying the war is lost, screw the Iraqis, let's all pull out our troops and go home, right?

Face it, half of our legislative Congress wants us to abandon the Iraqis.  You think that doesn't affect the way the Iraqis feel about the US?  Our Congress represents the US.

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

The Iraqis are reacting

to the violence and misery and death heaped on them as a result of the invasion and occupation. Anyway, the invasion was a war crime, and the occupation is as legitimate as the Nazi occupation of France. We need to leave for everyone's benefit.

Bush's one true statement:"Our enemies are resourceful and so are we. they never stop thinking of ways to harm us, and neither do we!"

 

Professor McTalkingPoints

Bush's quote -

By "we" he was referring to the Democrats.  After all, they are the ones who continue working on new ways to hurt their own country.

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

interesting point! fossten

So Bush is SO incompetent and stupid from his fratboy days of coke snorting and alcoholism that he cannot even use the personal pronoun properly. A reasonable theory.

Professor Troof

As opposed to your theory that Bush in that quote is deliberately admitting that he (and his team, presumably) continually comes up with new ways to hurt the country himself?  Oh, the absurdity.

Yeah, my theory is more reasonable than yours.

This from a guy who can't even use links less than a year old. 

Ho hum.

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

My main point is and was that the US policies

have done nothing to help Iraqis and that's a matter of historical record. I plead guilty to sloppy research but nobody has yet provided any contrary evidence to my MAIN POINT. So, instead you attack me, first by discovering mistakes that have absolutely no bearing on my MAIN points, which still stand regarding policies of the US causing misery and death to Iraqis.

"Late September poll", Gracie?

LOL. Do you even read what you link to?
Yeah, that's a WaPo story from "late September".

But there's one slight problem:
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A22

Why are you citing data over a year old? We all know the answer...

Ok, the poll is over a year old

and maybe there's been a change in Iraqi opinions. Here is another link to polls about how US citizens see Iraq. Note the result that says the DEMOCRATS are able to deal with Iraq better than the Republicans(about 50+% to 34%).. pretty telling where the AMERICAN public stands.

http://www.pollingre...

Professor Poll........I wouldn't read too much into

I would read too much into the Poll professor, the 11/2007 poll you linked to......after all, with an "Iraq War, how is it going" question with options like the ones below

Very Well
Fairly Well
Not Too
Well

Not at
All Well

Well ?  vs. ill or not well ?   it's a war, ..........we still have a Violent continuing war, and I wouldn't know how to choose between "Fairly Well" or "not too well" .

This is a useless Poll, especially since NO REPORTING on progress in Iraq is even being mentioned in the MSM....Good News is NOT REPORTED...so it's a Poll interviewing un-informed citizens....now a Poll of US MILITARY personnel with BOOTS on the Ground would be an Excellant Poll.  But the News would be too good for MSM to swallow.

But Polling un-informed US citizens with "Farily Well" questions is a Croc.   It's misleading, unless it serves your Agenda.

A US Military Iraq poll would NOT be misleading, it would be Real.   

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

There were several polls in my link. Interestingly

one question asked Americans who could more successfully deal with Iraq policy, 50% said dems, 34% said republicans.

"Ok, the poll is over a year old"

Why didn't you say so originally? Because you were attempting to deceive us. You specifically said it was a poll from "late September", and could have easily told us what year it was done, but you deliberately left that fact out.

I was trying to deceive you?

The poll had almost NO effect on the SUBSTANCE of my argument. I could demonstrate to a reasonable person, using the US as a hypothetical example, that the Iraqis want us out. What specific polls showing Iraqis want us to stay do you have. The quisling Maliki govt is no more credible than the French Vichy government which supported Nazi occupation. We are occupiers, and every action we've ever done has caused misery, suffering ,and death to Iraqis. A matter of historical record.

Geez, perfesser, your

Geez, perfesser, your denial is so weak, you sound like CNN.

Forget 911, I dial 10MM.

fossten.....PT gets all his info from CNN...thus

Professor Trulies gets all his info from CNN...........and I'm sure he never visits the Blogs of the Troops in Iraq, or never has been in Iraq....thus his knowledge is MSM driven, and Polls evidently drive his opinions....But I can't understand his visits to NB.....it's gonna give him writers cramps.   

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

but, JT, I've listened to vets who said they were from Iraq say

we shouldn't be in a civil war and we don't know who the enemy is.

Are these guys 'phony soldiers."? You don't think there are anti Iraq war vets?? I've never served in the military.

You've "Listened" to Vets?

In person, or just on some website?

Let me guess, you fell for the NY Times propaganda piece by the 7 service people in Iraq who said things sucked there. Did you know that a week later, 7 OTHER US service members asked the NY Times for equal time to respond?

The NYT refused their request.

Not Even a Nice Try

Answer my question-why did you say "late September" instead of "late September 2006"?

Riddle me this, Oh

Riddle me this, Oh Professor: If the Iraqis hate us so much, why are they asking us to establish permanent bases there in the first place?

http://www.wsmv.com/...

Gary, it's the quisling government of Iraq

that's negotiating for bases. The Iraqis have no say. Do you think that US public would be in favor of having the Chinese build super large bases inside the US?? By the way, if any of you have lost your jobs due to the collapse of construction in the housing market, I hear there's billions of dollars of construction money available for base building in iraq.

We don't NEED Chinese bases

We don't NEED Chinese bases in America. And that is a very silly argument, and you know it.

Here's the deal, American soldiers, Marines, and the Air Force don't occupy countries, they liberate them. Why is that such a terribly tough concept for you to comprehend?

I know you weenies that think wars should be fought from thirty thousand feet, find boots on the ground a hard concept, so here's a little "learnin'" for you.

When you go to war, and defeat the enemy, the civilized thing to do is help the survivors pick up the pieces. One can only imagine the flustercluck that would have ensued, had the troops pulled out right after Saddam was captured. Those idiotic "600,000 dead" Iraqi stories the moonbat sites are pushing would have been true! Al Qaeda would have set up camp, and destabilized the Nation, and had a base of operations to cause havoc all over the Middle East. Iran would have moved in also. The thought of NOT staying is what's unimaginable!

Just like after WWII, we have stuck around to pick up the pieces. And as shocking as it seems, to dims anyway, we still have troops in Germany and Japan.

After WWII we fought North Korea, basically to a stalemate. In fact, we are still AT war with N Korea. Only good thing is, no bullets are flying! But we have tens of thousands of troops in South Korea enforcing the demilitarized zone.

Those troops are in strategic places in the world, so if trouble breaks out, those boys can be deployed rather quickly.

As for Iraq, again, the want us there. And what you seem to be unable to compute is a stable Iraq, is a safe Iraq. And a safe Iraq is good for America.

In exchange for having American bases in Iraq, the US will have favored trade status, which will eventually work both ways. (they'll buy our stuff) And yes, we will be able to buy oil from them. (so go screaming through the streets that it really was all for oil after all!)

By having bases in Iraq, we will be able to temper Iran's aggression. We would be able to stop Iranian operatives from passing weapons into Iraq. We will also be in a better position to keep Hezbollah, and Hammas from gaining strength and threatening Israel and Lebanon.

Also, Dear Professor, don't forget, this is the first war since WWII where there is a high probability if we lose, the terrorists WILL follow us home. So above all, America comes first.

You love throwing out Nazi and Stalinist rhetoric. You favorite word seems to be Quisling, who was a Nazi collaborator from Norway.

Look, I know liberals wallow in misery daily, it's all you know. But may I suggest you go back and study REAL American history. Forget what the Daily Kos, or Arianna Hufington have to say. You've obviously been corrupted beyond the pale with the liberal religion.

Go and study and learn what a great and noble country we live. Try to realize this is the most generous nation on earth. Try to understand that no other place on God's earth can be as noble, as honorable, and as giving.

That's your home work my Dear Sir. Upon completion, I fully expect you to stop all of this America is bad BS, and get on the bandwagon and help us cheer our brave troops to victory, as well as this great Nation!

Gary, your comment

Gary, your comment was:

Here's the deal, American soldiers, Marines, and the Air Force don't
occupy countries, they liberate them. Why is that such a terribly tough
concept for you to comprehend?

The problem with your comment is it has no basis in reality. Once former Sunni "terrorists" are now being paid off by the US while they bide their time . How many examples of US NON-liberation would you like? The "liberation of Chile? Argentina? Nicaragua?

Haiti?Dominican Republic?Vietnam?Cambodia?Laos?Afghanistan?Iraq?Panama?Guatamala? Indonesia?Cuba?The Congo?Brazil? and more. write me when you have some countries that the US has liberated post WWII! All these countries were the victims of US intervention. Go read about their relationships with US intervention. It ain't pretty. For someone who spouts freedom, you sure seem to like forcing countries to bend to US policies. Maybe you mean freedom for disaster capitalists, the free market vultures who sweep down and force their economic dogma onto people while they're in a state of shock. It's happening right now in the US. Massive privatization of everything public. Read "The Shock Doctrine", then get back to me, sonny.

 

Bwahahah

Guess you "read" that somewhere. I guess we better tell the hundreds returning to their villages, thanking us, here that. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you have zero military experience, hence the suggested need for you to probably slam shut the soup coolers on operations and accomplishments. You weasel nuggets are all the same, complain when things arent' going well, complain when they do. Occupation army? Heh.....you griping and complaining about all the other countries we've been in for sixty years or do you only know of the ones you read about in the news? Do everyone a favor and save the grandma hand wringing for your sewing circle and let us do our job, it's going just fine without you.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Matthews opinions are worth

Matthews opinions are worth as much as the spittle he spews every time he opens his yap.

On Chris' Planet

I guess in Chris' world, "surrender documents" are irrelevant. According to his logic, the "Surrender Deck" I visited on the Battleship Missouri a few years ago is just a mirage.

trooping places

so, am i wrong to say the yanquis lost the civil war since they still have their troops stationed here in Tejas ?? or that the British 'won' the war of 1812 since they don't have troops stationed in los estados unidos del norte' ??? ....

never look a gift skunk in the tail ..

Questions

Based on his general demeanor, on air personality, inability to ask an intelligent question and truly bizarre statements, do you believe Chris Matthews is:

a. Overmedicated

b. Undermedicated

Chris' medication

I think undermedicated, and he may want to increase the voltage on his electroshock therapy, too.

Korean War

Technically the Korean War is not over.

There is a demilitarized zone with troops guarding it.  This is a result of the cease fire.

Neither Korea signed a document ending the war.

 

And Fossten  I like your sig but I prefer 11.5MM or .45 cal. :)

 

Jack Van Nostrand

Troutdale, Ore 

It Isn't Over Until It's Over...

Very true, but I meant “over” in the sense of an end to hostilities. However, that isn't what I wrote and thus, is inaccurate.  

I am aware of the stalemate and lack of peace treaty which is why I left the Korean vets out of the sentence in the last paragraph that described changing WWII vets “from winners into losers.”

As penance, I'll force myself to locate and listen to one of the operas written by Kim Jong Il. Maybe even comb my hair into a pompadour, climb into platforms and force those around me to call me Dear Leader. (Yes, I know that Kim Jong Il's father Kim Il Sung ruled during the war police action, but the son is much more fun to mock)

Definition of an ideological sycophant:

See Picture above.

Definition of an idiot: see above.



The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com

Baghdad shouldn't...

Baghdad shouldn't be the country's only bellwether.

By Jon P. Dorschner

Tallil, Iraq
America's media and pundits' view of Iraq has been too Baghdad-centric. This year, they have judged whether the US surge succeeded almost solely by looking at violence levels in the city. Critics also pointed to the Baghdad government's failure to produce reconciliation legislation as a bellwether for the country.

But progress does not have to be measured by the security and politics of Baghdad alone. Maybe it is time to reframe the debate. Maybe the real trend line is elsewhere.

My Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) is in Dhi Qar Province in southern Iraq. It's a dusty, sparsely populated backwater as far from Baghdad as you can get. It is inhabited by "marsh Arabs," Bedouin tribesmen, and simple peasants, who eke out a subsistence living from the harsh landscape and live in simple one-story structures of adobe bricks, with old cars parked in front. Village boys commonly herd family livestock through the flat, dusty plains.

Dhi Qar's story is much different from that of Baghdad. Almost 100 percent Shiite Muslim, its inhabitants participated in two abortive "uprisings" called by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Now instead of calling for uprisings, Mr. Sadr has ordered his Jaish al Mahdi militia to stand down, and violence has dramatically declined.

Governance and security there have been in the hands of Iraqis for more than a year. The governor and popularly elected provincial council make policy, construct a provincial budget, and implement development plans, while the Iraqi Army and police maintain order. US Army forces are seldom seen in Dhi Qar, while my PRT pursues projects in the area virtually unmolested.

Today, there is no uprising in the air. Instead, the people of Dhi Qar are thinking of different possibilities, such as building up their infrastructure.

On Nov. 10, I attended a conference hosted by the Dhi Qar provincial government. While waiting for the VIPs – officials from Baghdad – to arrive, I mingled with other movers and shakers, including tribal sheikhs in traditional garb, generals in a wide variety of uniforms, and government officials. Some foreign ambassadors were present as well, but the conference was clearly an Iraqi affair from top to bottom.

When the VIPs arrived, they were greeted by a maulvi (cleric), who presented a moving recitation from the Koran, followed by local schoolchildren singing patriotic songs and poets expressing their love for Dhi Qar and Iraq.

This was the first time any Dhi Qar government had hosted such an ambitious undertaking. It provided the security, transportation, and logistics. Baghdad-based officials had usually avoided Dhi Qar, but this time, Vice President Adel Abd al-Madhi and Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih attended with a large delegation. They acknowledged that Dhi Qar has long been neglected and had suffered under Saddam Hussein's regime. Now, they said, is the time for change.

With the audience settled comfortably in their chairs, drinking fruit juice from cardboard cartons and holding lively conversations, the VIPs made their presentations. The deputy prime minister noted that Iraq's 2008 budget, at $16 billion, would be the largest in the nation's history, and that southern Iraq could receive $3 to $4 billion.

A parade of provincial ministers provided facts, figures, and PowerPoint slides documenting reconstruction projects, including roads, schools, hospitals, government centers, power plants, water treatment plants, canals, and irrigation projects. Slides of future possibilities included a new marketplace for the capital, Nasiriyah, a multistory parking garage, apartment blocks in the city center, and a rebuilt sewer system.

The governor emphasized that his province has come a long way and has a long way to go. He requested more help from Baghdad and foreign donors, for improved irrigation, new schools, paved roads, and improved healthcare.

The conference demonstrated that the formerly powerless people of Dhi Qar are not going to wait for the Baghdad government to pass legislation and move forward on reconciliation. They have begun to assert themselves and assume their rightful role in Iraq's political setup.

After years of violence, insurgency, and uprisings, the current window of relative peace may present an unprecedented opportunity to move ahead economically and politically. Provincial people and their governments appear determined to grab this opportunity and run with it, with or without the government in Baghdad. And that is a legitimate sign of progress for the country.

• Jon P. Dorschner is a career foreign-service officer and the Iraq provincial affairs officer in the Italian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team in Dhi Qar Province. This piece was subject to State Department review.
http://www.csmonitor...

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

Matthews' argument is null

Matthews' argument is null and void because Iraq is not a war, just a military action.

*swish*

The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy

and all the Shiites and Sunnis lived happily ever after.

And so all this 'wonderful ' news begs the question,"when are all the soldiers going to withdraw from Iraq?" And we've heard these wonderful proclamations before from lil awol and his "mission accomplished" banner behind him as he lied about a defeat for a major ally of Al Qaeda(funny, and I thought all the Al qaeda violence occurred AFTER we removed the major ally of Al Qaeda), Dick"the insurgents are in their las throes Cheney" , Rummy"there's just a few dead enders" and "we know where they are(WMD's).... north, south ,east ,west of Tikrit. Last, how does anyone know whether the insurgents have been defeated?? did they surrender?? might they be waiting for an opportune moment to escalate the violence? maybe they're recruiting and preparing for violence at a later date?

Lil awol and his gang of liars is the problem. Impeachment and withdrawal is the solution.

Prof. Truth is why I think

Prof. Truth is why I think that colleges are the worst place to send our children without sitting them down and telling them the truths about our country and history. Prof. Truth is another ranting idiot who is finally being challenged on his so-called beliefs and has to run back to his blog to get some cold comfort.

The continual use of the word "occupier" to identify our troops, of which I am one, is disrespectful, and untrue. I am sure he believes he "supports the troops" but he has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Supporting the troops means you don't call them murderers (like Murtha), you don't tell them that they have lost the war when they haven't (like Pelosi and Reid). You don't call them Nazis and members of Pol Pot's regime (like Dick Durbin).

You support the troops by supporting the mission. At least if you don't support the war effort or troops, be a man and say that. We would at least respect you for being honest instead of hiding behind some facade that you use to make you feel better about yourself.

We ARE winning. The Iraqis WANT us there until the country is stabilized. We ARE winning in Afghanistan too, but Prof Truth and the rest of his ilk never talk about that because they would have to give President Bush credit for that.

 We are taking the fight to Al-Queda (who WAS in Iraq during Saddam's reign) and we are turning the public against them. Fifty years down the road President Bush will be seen as one of the greatest Presidents in history. Mark my words.

Out.

I've stated the truth about US policy resulting historically in

increased misery, suffering and death for the Iraqis, a historical truth that has no credible evidence to refute it. I am absolutely against this criminal war. Support the troops is empty jingoism.

I think soldiers should only be put in harm's way when it is undeniably needed, either for defending US territory, or defending attacks against US territory or sometimes for humanitarian purposes. Why should i support a criminal mission of stealing Iraqi resources, privatizing it's industries, and subjugating it's citizens. Democracy is the LAST thing we want in the middle east. Look at how we reacted to the democratically elected Hamas. The US believes in democracy ONLY when it serves US interests. Is Saudi Arabia a "democracy?" Egypt? Kuwait? Pakistan? The only consideration for US policy is how it affects US power and US interests. There is only morality for the ignorant , the duped, and the foolish. You say we are winning. Maybe. Dick Cheney said the insurgency is in it's last throes a few years back. Rummy said that the insurgents consisted of a few dead enders, around 5000 back within a year of lil AWOL's aircraft carrier landing. The commander of the assault on Fallujah said something like, "we've broken the backs of the insurgents". It's been a couple of years back. All these grand claims of theperennial "light at the end of the tunnel" haven't panned out. Nor has the wonderful greeting with flowers and candy. Especially now that Iraq is a failed state, having over 4 million refugees and a million dead estimated. What have we gained? Lot's of dead and wounded Americans. There was no Al Qaeda alliance with Saddam, another complete, bogus lie passed around.

Last, I hope you come home safe and sound. I hope you get top quality care for any problems. I hope the government doesn't try to screw you like it has tried to other soldiers. I didn't tell you to serve , I didn't ask you to serve, and I don't believe that the Iraq war has done anything to advance my freedom . No Iraqis ever attacked us on 9-11, although lil awol frequently mixed refernces between Saddam, 9-11 and terrorists in a way to deceive the public into backing his war crime, and the Iraq war is a war crime.

 

Nutty Prof

I didn't even read this long-winded post (another in a long line...) I stopped at the headline, because it contained your favorite word that I don't want to see anymore: "history" (or, fine, "historical" or "historically"....)

STOP! No more about history -- and your leftist-tinted version of it (ugh) -- please!

And you're a SCIENCE teacher, not a history teacher, remember?

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)

I believe SOCIALIST JINGOISM would be an appropriate name

to give to the "Perfesser's" (who is only a BA, not even a MA)  latest gaseous anti-American spew.  

Not much for honest recitation of history or facts, is he, MrShy?

RJ

Yeah, haha... and now when I hear or see the word "jingoism", Tom Brokaw's face appears (from that interview w/ Ingram :p)

Also, this:

"I think soldiers should only be put in harm's way when it is undeniably needed"

Is that a favorite cry of the looney left, or what??

"Don't put (get this.....) soldiers..... in harms way!!!"

Yeah, their job is not to be in harms way. Their job is to be, um.... safely behind a desk? Proof-reading? Doing graphic design? Something where they're not, um..... risking their lives? Something safe?

Okey dokey..... "cookoo, cookoo" 

 

"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)