What would you do now? (thread inspired by jj)

[jimmyjude]

Originally Posted by Laru

Why do you think our involvement with Iraq is imperialist in nature?

If oil is the reason we are there, why did we ever leave after liberating Kuwait?

Well to be absolutely honest...we didn't leave following the First Gulf War.

That is why the Iranians were able to kill all those AMericans at the Khobar Towers.

[dredloct]

Originally Posted by Laru

Why do you think our involvement with Iraq is imperialist in nature?

If oil is the reason we are there, why did we ever leave after liberating Kuwait?

I begin with a man named Zbigniew Brzezinski. He founded the Trilateral Commission under request from David Rockefeller. He was the National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter from '77-'81. He is an associate of Henry Kissinger. An international advisor of several major US/Global corporations. He was a member of Ronald Reagan's NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated long term Strategy, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a past member of the board of directors for the Council on Foreign Relations. He was Bush Sr.'s co-chair of the National Security Advisory Task Force. He is also an attendee and presenter of conferences with the Bilderberg group. I only go through all the boring credentials to give credence to his connections in Washington D.C. and around the world.
Well Zbigniew (anybody got a phonetic spelling on that first name?) wrote a book called the Grand Chessboard. If you really want to get mad, read this book. It shouldn't matter which side of this left/right debate you are on, it's just plain unamerican.
In the foreword of his book he makes the assertion "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power." (p. xiii)
"...But in the meantime, it is imperative that n o Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical." Manages? "A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions." Then it goes on blah, blah, blah "control of Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination" blah, blah blah australia and asia are basically irrelevant at this point, then it goes on to say "About 75% of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath it soil. Eurasia accounts for about 3/4 of the world's known energy resources." (p. 31)
I'm sorry I have so many quotes but they do support my theory. I swear I won't type the whole book in here.
So understand that billions upon billions, if not more, money is being made on this war. By many of the companies that are making the majority of that money has ties to this administration, in one way or another. I'm not going to list and source these businesses because I am assuming that there is no debate on this issue. I believe that when dealing with a crime (which I believe the Iraq war to be) you must ask "Cui Bono?" Who stands to gain? Since 9/11 these businesses have prospered exponentially. 9/11 changed America's foriegn policy. America now has an open-ended invitation to kick anyone's ass on the grounds that they are harboring the boogeyman that we can't see and we can't understand. A creature whose only purpose in life is to kill you. They might have anthrax. Might fly planes into buidings. You don't know because you can't see them. They're living all among you. Oh, shit look out behind you is that one. That might have a dirty bomb. The best advice we got is buy some water and put duct tape on your windows. Look out they're over there. No, now they're over there. This is the politics of fear. When people are scared they think much more emotionally than rationally.
We couldn't take Baghdad in Gulf Storm because we would have been denounced as Imperialists. That was unacceptable politically in Bush Sr.'s term. But in Jr.'s the rules have changed. But you don't have to take my word for it.
"Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. but the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p. 35)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus of foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in WWII largely because of the shock effct of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (p. 24-25)
Ever seen anything as shocking as that tuesday morning in September 5 years ago? Me either. Cui Bono.
"America's global primacy" arrogant much? "is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained." (p. 30)
Well my show's on so I'm out. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert...Did you see him at the Presidential Roast...uhhh I mean Correspondence Dinner. Brilliant.

[PhilosopherWarrior]

To Dredloct,
I hope you don't mind that I respond..
It's nice to find a "wordy" opponent

You read obscure books,too,huh?

Originally Posted by dredloct

I begin with a man named Zbigniew Brzezinski. He founded the Trilateral Commission under request from David Rockefeller. He was the National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter from '77-'81. He is an associate of Henry Kissinger. An international advisor of several major US/Global corporations. He was a member of Ronald Reagan's NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated long term Strategy, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a past member of the board of directors for the Council on Foreign Relations. He was Bush Sr.'s co-chair of the National Security Advisory Task Force. He is also an attendee and presenter of conferences with the Bilderberg group. ..

...

You insinuate ties with whole world-conspiracies, but it's this flunky
you quote?
If you appreciate generational and international covert planning,
perhaps the upper echelon might have more responsibility.
You name Kissinger.. do you have any particular gripe in mind,
or do you hope that the implied connection will be supplied by the reader..
The Bilderbergers( and the gnomes and the rothschilds etc)..
hmm.. that's a european dominated one that usually suggests a world communist/monopolist plot to "manage" affairs to the benefit of jewish bankers, right?
.. A question..
Did they start with Pres Carter, helped by Pres Reagan..
balked by Pres Bush Sr, and championed by Pres Bush jr
and yet, ignore Pres Clinton's administration?
( or will you ignore Bill's "chinese connection"?)

Originally Posted by dredloct

In the foreword of his book he makes the assertion "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power." (p. xiii)
"...But in the meantime, it is imperative that n o Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical." Manages? "A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions." Then it goes on blah, blah, blah "control of Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination" blah, blah blah australia and asia are basically irrelevant at this point, then it goes on to say "About 75% of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath it soil. Eurasia accounts for about 3/4 of the world's known energy resources." (p. 31)

You seem to have a problem with boring but factual statistics.
You are patently dismissing the "rationale" of this
pseudo-politician {and in an aside..
ZB was another mediocrity
foisted on America by "brilliant" democrat DC elitists..
The one's who ADVISED Pres Carter.}
and you insinuate a suspicion of
merely NAMING what is a necessary analysis of economics.
Maybe not ZB's..
but analysis must be done by SOMEBODY.
It IS true that the world population and economic strength centers in a swath from the North Atlantic to west Russia and S Asia,right?

And now,here goes the 'directed' analysis;
Dred seems to focus with the leftists' desire for a fuhrer to blame..

Originally Posted by dredloct

"So understand that billions upon billions, if not more, money is being made on this war. By many of the companies that are making the majority of that money has ties to this administration, in one way or another. I believe that when dealing with a crime (which I believe the Iraq war to be) you must ask "Cui Bono?" Who stands to gain? Since 9/11 these businesses have prospered exponentially. 9/11 changed America's foriegn policy." ....." This is the politics of fear. When people are scared they think much more emotionally than rationally."

So are you against War as an unspecified 'pacifist' response;
Capitalism as expressed by Western Civilization a la the
generational and covert DOCUMENTED ComIntern;
or are you merely a demagogic soldier fighting for YOUR faction?

.. You seem to forget that activist militant anti-western war
WAS directed AS a religious cabal..i.e. Wahabism ( 1917!!!!!!!!)
long before even The Prescott/ Bush's EVER made it in Banking.

The violence ..the ACTS of death against innocents
just because they THINK as an infidel..
You seem to disregard as propaganda..
How about the history of anti-semitism..
is that also ignored by you?

What exactly IS okay about our self-declared enemies?

Originally Posted by dredloct

We couldn't take Baghdad in Gulf Storm because we would have been denounced as Imperialists. That was unacceptable politically in Bush Sr.'s term. But in Jr.'s the rules have changed. But you don't have to take my word for it.
"Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. but the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p. 35)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus of foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in WWII largely because of the shock effct of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (p. 24-25)
Ever seen anything as shocking as that tuesday morning in September 5 years ago? Me either. Cui Bono.
"America's global primacy" arrogant much? "is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained." (p. 30).

You quote things that you imply are destructive,
but you aren't clear about your motives..
Well it's been written better,
with MUCH clearer analyses by
dozens of historians, politicians, and pundits.

Teddy Roosevelt wrote that only some towns burning would rouse
the American people to the threat of German Imperialism( circa 1905)

..More recently the history of the Korean War
( the first 'limited war' we've fought as global policeman)
( was Truman in the bilderbergers too?)
by TR Fehrenbach-"This kind of War"{ Pocketbooks 1963}

-" Ten Yearsafter the guns fell into uneasy silence
along the 38th parallel,
it is still impossible to write a definitive history
of the Korean War. For that war did not write the end to an era,
but merely marked afork in the road the world is still traveling.
It was a minor collision, a skirmish between the Earth's two superpowers-
but the fact that cost more than two million human lives
showed clearly the extent of the chasm beside which men walked.
More than anything else,
the Korean War was not a test of strength-
because neither antagonist used full powers-
but of wills"
( bold mine)
He closes with - (page 703-704)
-"Korea, from Task Force Smith at Osan
to the last days at Pork Chop,
indicates that the policy of containment cannot be implemented
without professional Legions.

Yet every democratic government is reluctant to face the fact.
Reservists and citizen-soldiers stand ready,
in every free nation,
to stand to the colors and die in holocaust,
the big war.
Reservists and citizen-soldiers remain
utterly reluctant
to stand and die
in anything less.

None want to serve on the far frontiers,
or to maintain lonely, dangerous vigils
on the periphery of Asia...
The United States will be forced to fight wars of policy during
the balance of the century ( written 1963)
This is inevitable..."

"However repugnant the idea is to liberal societies,
the man who will wllingly defend the free world in the fringe areas
is not the responsible citizen-soldier.
The Man who will go where his colors go, without asking,
who will fight a phantom foe in jungle and mountain range,
without counting, and who will suffer and die
in the midst of incredible hardship,
without complaint,is still what he has always been,
from Imperial Rome to sceptered Britain to democratic America.
He is the stuff Legions are made...

" Korea showed it was time to tell the men who man our Legions
that there is nothing easy in this world,
that there ARE tigers,
and to furnish them with tiger guns.
Korea showed that a free government must be prepared to do the unpleasant thing, even if it destroys itself.
Governments are not important;
Nations and people and what they stand for, are."..

" If liberal, decent societies cannot discipline themselves to
do all these things, they may have nothing to offer the world.
They may not last long enough.
Aristotle wrote,
"Almost all things have been found,
but some have been forgotten.
For quotes that support a position.

Originally Posted by dredloct

Well my show's on so I'm out. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert...Did you see him at the Presidential Roast...uhhh I mean Correspondence Dinner. Brilliant.

Jon Stewart.. and HE is informed and mentored by the Noam Chomsky's of the world..
( a decided anti-american cynic)..
Enjoy the shows.
MTC

[rightofrush]

My way out would start with setting a timetable for gradual withdrawal of U S troops. Tell the Iraqi govt. that they have 6 months to show appreciable improvement on public security { recruitment centers,civilian contractors,journalists,etc.} and infrastructure improvements { electricity generation,water supplies,Iraqi law enforcement } or we remove 50,000 troops. I would say that i recognize they are an independent govt. but American lives have been lost on their behalf so it's only fair that we have a great deal of influence on the process. To that end the Interior ministry would switch to American oversight. We hire,train & deploy all their members until such time as their independence is aquired.I would also state that anyone making,fomenting or supporting threats of violence against Americans will be treated as an enemy combatant.I would believe this to already be our policy except for the fact that Moktada al Sadr remains alive.He should have been dealt with 3 years ago.
I would continue reminding the American people why we went there in the first place { sew the seeds of democracy in the most repressive region of the world and to ensure that Iraq would never become a threat like Iran & N. Korea }, What we have accomplished { It's not all gloom & doom N Y Times }
And what will happen if we cut & run { Shites in Iraq partnering with Shites in Iran to become a nuclear powered theocracy,Kurds in the north partnering with Kurds in Turkey which would make Istanbul very nervous, and worst of all making our word meaningless to all the other people aspiring for freedom like the young in Iran,Lebanon & egypt }

[PhilosopherWarrior]

Originally Posted by PhilosopherWarrior

..This is a similar opinion to "Hitler was a bad guy, but..."..
Pick a side.. Either Police-State collectives of a socialist-democratic slant
( a la' Hitler's Germany,Stalin's Soviet Union,Tung's ChiCom Republic,etc)
are GOOD { and you also oppose capitaist democracies }
OR they are an evil scourge, like disease, and we must do right
by our fellow humans.
Are you saying that POWER is the only thing to respect?


You repeat your underlying admiration for dictatorship,and a
terrorized and cowed populace.
Perhaps you are aware that "artificial" states that have
NO binding social/value "glue" except PC slogans and
equalitarian platitudes ALWAYS degenerates into rule of force.
What made America's unifying social/value "glue'?
Perhaps rather than a pre-fab euro-style gov't we should encourage
the rise of individual economic power-blocs.

Iraqi's who make money giving Iraqi's what they need to go to work , etc.
You know, more an American-style economy.

But then again,... the world ( or at least it's media) whines
we are trying to "tell them what to do."
{ rather like recalcitrant children, no?}

Clearly, the changes we have brought to the region in the last fifty years
( yes, we really HAVE been the global policeman since WWII.)
HAVE been very trying for the old style religious warlord dictators.

OBVIOUSLY this was a clash of civilizations the West wants accomplished peacefully.

But War happens from the desperate insecure side.. and
make no mistake readers,
We are in a struggle that ( like the crusades in the past ) IS generational.

We are part of a struggle that WILL go on for this century..

At least as long as we cannot articulate WHY America;
and why it's Capitalist/individualist philosophy is the more
progressive ( and successful) model for human societies.

{ Note, people, I am not an advocate of ALL of
America's corporate/gov't policies and actions
, and I really have deep criticisms and analyses
of the West and the US,..
but comparatively I know which side I am on..}

The US must articulate for our own people as well as the "occupied territories", and the world,
just what ARE the essential freedoms that America as a civilzation embody.

We must encourage that kind of individual actions for their own individual benfit..i.e. entrepeneurism.

We must encourage and support the governments that
believe in an impartial, secular, and dedicated judiciary.
The kind of men and women who we need in representative positions
in America, and everywhere, must NOT be typical Ivy-League trained academics and lawyers.
These are already people taught the subjective victim-oriented
disciplines of Marxist academia..

We need the experience of real managers and engineers.
These are people who will not be PC
and will not make bloodless, easy decisions.
Some will get rich and influential.
This IS as it should be.
This IS the model to build a proud and robust
representative democratic citizenry.


solly cholly, A government WAS set up BY the revolutionaries.
THERE had been widespread rhetoric and activism.
The Congress was a constant hamstring to military ( i.e. GWashington's) needs.
Adversity and principles overcomes the fears of risk and death.
Thirty years in a soviet-style police state does NOT
foster the proud individual who stands up
AND DOES THE RIGHT THING.

And yet, every day there really are unsung Iraqi's ( muslims all)
who get up in the morning and risk their families lives to rebuild a society. Schools and hospitals, yes.
But also bread distributors, and a/c repair companies,
innovative sellers of things Iraqis will want.

They ARE out there. And they are the targets of the
desperate criminal thugs.

Doctors and businessmen get killed there.
you know, the kind of people YOU would be for,
if you knew of them.

When THOSE people shoot back, and inform on the criminals ,
then their society will reform.
Until then we need to have a superlative ( and covert )
intel/police/judicial system assisting the modern system we are grafting there,
to surgically remove the cancerous criminal elements.
( including religious monsters.)


So we could do what the enemy wants, ( and you want too, Cordie..)
which is to let someone else ACT, and we can feel guilty and superior
all at the same time.
Like in the Sudan, right?
You all have expressed a number of contradictory and irrational opinions.
The elements of truth are connected wrong, and critical influences
are unaccounted for. These are simplistic and emotionally
tainted conclusions,Cordie; Ocham-;Ididnot-;gansta-; and do not serve America well.
Sure, there are much deeper criticisms of our domestic policies.
But NOT internationally..
Sure, we have serious debates about factions and a "mixed-economy"..
But NOT internationally..

What do we do in the semi-future?
Stay in the middle-East, continue to threaten ALL of the throwback primitive power factions there,
until the clerics and the tribal leaders are deposed and disgraced.

If we do it efficiently, we could "de-nazify" the region in twenty or thirty years.
( by the way, you ARE aware that
US political/military occupation of Germany
continues TO THIS DAY,
RIGHT?)
If we let the propaganda war go on ( letting the enemy win) we will have a lot of fires burning,
( which still could be handled with efficient and COVERT means).
This applies politically in Africa and Asia.
Some judicious accidents in S America, S Asia, N Korea, and Syria would
also make for a calmer future, also.

There, some real pragmatic views.

Yeah.. that's right.. I knew I said something like this months ago.

[ONEWHITEDUCK]

Originally Posted by Chief

Please refrain from a litiny of your views about decisions made to this point and look from this day forward. If you were elected President today, what would you do about the war in Iraq?

From what I've seen there are basically 3 solutions that have been voiced:

1. Immediate troop withdrawal.
2. Setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.
3. Setting an event goal for troop withdrawal. (the event being the Iraq government being able to control it's internal security)

Are there other solutions? Which of these has the most merit?

I believe that we must have achieved our event goal before withdrawal.

I WOULD EXPOSE THE MIND CUNT TROLL FAGGOTS BEHIND THAT WAR.

AND I HAVE SO FUCK YOU AND JESUS ON YA :-)