- This topic has 1 reply, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ever hear of the SOA, Scott? The School of the Americas, commonly referred to as the School of the Assassins? Your version of El Salvadoran history sounds much like Stalinesque revisionist pap.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/SOA.htmlPeople with your beliefs and your view of history scare the hell out of me. You’re the same people who allowed the Third Reich to flourish only to slaughter millions of people in the name of some noble cause, some perverted ideal, or some other whacko political philosophy, just as the rich in Latin America have been slaughtering the peasants with the aid of our lovely School of the Americas.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N53/klinge.53o.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/elsalvador/elsalvador.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1201-30.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
And then just for fun, may I suggest that you read “Dark Alliance” by Gary Webb, 548 pages of corruption and conspiracy perpetrated by CIA in Nicaragua, which harks back to my original comment that Eric Volz may be a victim of anti-american sentiment as a result of our meddling in Nicaragua.
Edited on May 06, 2007 14:13
God forbid we do anything that is a benefit to us, Maravilla. If we did do anything that wasn’t in our best interest and only noble or altruistic, you would complain that the U.S. is constantly forcing its values onto other people.
You would not praise the U.S. for doing something good. Do you believe the U.S. is a force for good or bad in the world? Do you want the U.S. to lose in Iraq?
We already lost Iraq, or haven’t you noticed. It’s all out civil war. Stop watching Bill O’Reilly and get some real news, and please give me an example of something good to which you refer? And what are you talking about when you say that I would constantly complain that we are forcing our values on other people? THAT is exactly what we do when we sponsor the death squads all over Central America. Sheesh. I wonder where some of you got your education about global policy. Scary, to say the least.
Everybody lost as soon as we went to war – EVERYBODY!
The US is niether a force of good or evil. It is simply a force of both. Just like you and just like me.
Please tell me what is winning in Iraq?
Making it like the US, imposing our values and culture (?) on them.
If that is winning I guess we are winning in Costa Rica too.
To help birth a nation and staying true to our promises is how we win. We are there now, like it or not. If we leave, there will be massive murder of innocents and a haven for terrorists. That is what losing is. That is also what Osama Bin Laden wants. Winning is doing the opposite of what your enemy wants.
Do you think leaving is a better idea? At this point don’t we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay and help fight the terrorists who want control of their country.
Do you think the terrorists are neither a force of good or evil? Or a force of both? Just like you and me.
My defeatism? Are you for real? Do you think we’re winning in Iraq? Gaawd. Yes, I abhor our policies of invading a country for its resources and slaughtering their citizens like pigs. I love my country but I despise some of its policies, and as a citizen, it is MY duty to rail against the injustice of this war.
Birth a nation? Puhleeeeeze. We invaded them. You can’t shove democracy down the throats of a culture that has lived under fascism for three thousand years. Are you on crack? They want us OUT OF THERE! We are murdering the innocents, bucko. And a lot of people there think we’re the terrorists. Osama had nothing to do with Iraq, NOTHING WHATSOEVER! Pulling out of there would be the best thing we can do. Our dry-drunk Prez has a 28% approval rating. That means 72% of our population doesn’t like what he’s doing with the war, the economny, or anything else. So I’m not the lone wolf here crying in the dark. There are a lot of people just like me who are disgusted with the premise on which we invaded Iraq. There were no WMDs, Osama had nothing to do with Saddam, yada yada yada. It’s all so old news by now. And the slaughter continues. We don’t owe the Iraqi people anything. We want their oil. So we’re going to be there for the next 20 years! This is nothing more than another Vietnam. Remember THAT debacle??
I liked the bucko comment. Hear is an article you may want to read. What do you think will happen in Iraq if we get out?
Iraq Through The Lens Of Joe Lieberman
By SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN | Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Following are highlights of a speech by Sen. Joe Lieberman on the Senate floor last week responding to Majority Leader Harry Reid’s justifications for Congress to take control of the direction of the Iraq War. Click here to read the full speech.
• Sen. Reid wants to “transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war — to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.”
Lieberman: What does this actually mean? Instead of restoring basic security, which Gen. (David) Petraeus (commander of Multinational Force Iraq) has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would be ordered . . . not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them — no matter how vicious or horrific.
Lieberman: Cutting through the catchphrases.
In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians — men, women and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. This makes no moral sense at all.
It also makes no strategic or military sense. Al-Qaida’s own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq’s political center, overthrow Iraq’s elected government, radicalize its population and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.
That is why al-Qaida blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by al-Qaida in Baghdad now.
I do not know how to say it more plainly: It is al-Qaida that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.
• Sen. Reid believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct “targeted counter-terror operations” under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.
But again, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?
By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike — and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.
How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight al-Qaida there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
• Sen. Reid has called for “the phased redeployment of our troops no later than Oct. 1, 2007,” a deadline that will “put pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises.”
But will it? According to the legislation before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does. How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices? On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.
This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted: A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead would “almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.”
• Sen. Reid also has said that withdrawing our troops will “reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency.”
In other words, (he) is suggesting the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.
But… where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before Gen. Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul, Fallujah, Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
On the contrary — in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, al-Qaida rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
• Sen. Reid has observed that there is “a large and growing population of millions — who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over.”
On this, I completely agree. (But) how does the strategy proposed (by Reid) help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces — regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?
Does anyone really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq’s reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone? With all due respect, this is fantasy.
• Sen. Reid also proposes to impose “tangible, measurable and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government.”
I am all for such benchmarks. But I don’t see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them — regardless of how they behave.
We should . . . be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can agree on. But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like al-Qaida in Iraq will simply vanish.
Al-Qaida is not mass-murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table. It wants to blow up the table — along with everyone seated at it. Al-Qaida wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.
• Sen. Reid also has proposed a “diplomatic, economic, and political offensive starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.”
All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people.
And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.
But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between al-Qaida terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.
What we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that Gen. Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.
In following Gen. Petraeus’ path, there is no guarantee of success — but there is hope, and a new plan, for success. (Reid’s) plan, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.
Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost — but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.Roark from your passion, although be it misguided, (maravilla: ditto – but not misguided) I can tell you are a patriot, Thank you for caring, But you need to look deeper than the rethoric.
There is a lot of “crazy Wisdom” to war.” When you stop shoving things down peoples throat they tend to stop resisting. This is a basic physical reaction – as well as an emotional and intellectual one.
I was part of Viet Nam and Reid’s logic was mostly valid.
“That is also what Osama Bin Laden wants. Winning is doing the opposite of what your enemy wants.”
We played into Bin Laden’s hands. Using your logic, winning would have been not to empower Iran by invading Iraq.
“To help birth a nation and staying true to our promises is how we win.
What was our promise and who made it????
To help birth a nation in our image?
They obviously do not know enough about democracy to fight for it. Are we going to hang around there and have our troops killed for Iraqis. I don’t care to sacrifice our citizens to grant Iraqis freedom they will not come together for. Or fight for in a cohesive manner.
“We are there now, like it or not.”
That doesn’t mean we can’t leave. You are where you are now – and you can choose to leave. That’s a benefit of freedom, it called choice.
“If we leave, there will be massive murder of innocents and a haven for terrorists. That is what losing is.”
That was inevitable when we invaded without proper previous planning. Bush made that a reality, not us leaving. Bush has used the crisis he has created as an opportunity to profit, financially and politically.
It is the LACK of Planning and Bush’s arrogance that has empowered Iran and will lead to the INEVITABLE civil war that will reveal who will fill the power vacuum that the Bush Cheney war machine, so they could rein supreme among the Elite – has created.
“Do you think leaving is a better idea?”
Yes, because it is inevitable. Iraq was a cavity that could have been filled by replacing leadership. Not by destroying the governing system and trying to rebuild it. Oh what a great reason for an occupation!!! lets see 5 good years rebuilding (?) the goverment and Halliburton and their kind could rake in ca-billions. This is all about Power, and not Iraqis or US citizen power. It’s the elite in a pissing contest at out county’s expense.
“At this point don’t we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay and help fight the terrorists who want control of their country. “
Hell no! The terrorist will control the country if we stay. The power vacuum has not been filled. Once the strongest come to power, the civil unrest will stop. This may take years but thank georgie porgie for this (get down on your knees and thank the little tin God Bush).
We should all hang our heads in shame for the way we have let the Media decimate the chance of having any new dynamic leaders step up. The media is the enemy, PERIOD>
“Do you think the terrorists are neither a force of good or evil? Or a force of both? Just like you and me.”
Actually, those airplanes hitting the towers did our culture a lot of good.
We now see how other countries are sick of our perverse culture, Men are women / women are men. Rampant materialism and hedonistic movies. Our culture is rapidly losing all moral sense. Rap – need I say more?This county was based on the credo “In GOD We Trust” There have never been so many Godless souls in the US.
So if Islamic extremist kill 3,000 Americans to say “enough” with exporting your perverted culture, then yes I think they are a force of good although working in an evil way, just like our occupancy. Hey we gave it a go and there is no sense in throwing away good lives after bad decisions.
Our problem is people just don’t stand up anymore when they see unnatural/violent/beligernt behavior. They just turn their heads. This is a defect in our culture. EWre should say enough to the hollywood crap machine and stop buying their products, Stop worshiping stupid movie actors or worse slutty wealthy debutants.
IE: I picked up my 7 year old from school after a late soccer practice. As we were leaving there were 4 teenagers dressed in black skateboarding. Jumping on curbs, hand rails etc. My kid said, “Dad we just got new lunch tables and the teacher said they are already scratched up by the skate boarders.”
I took my cell phone and took pictures of them jumping and banging things up.” Then I walked up to them and took pictures of their faces. They started to leave. One kid turned and said “You didn’t have to take pictures of us, all you had to do was ask us to leave.” I told them “all of you drop your skate boards or I am calling the police and giving them these pictures (I also photoed their license plate number).” They all gave up their boards. I gave then a business card, collected their boards and told them if they want them back have their parents call me.
That was Saturday.
Not one parent has called.
I got in the car and my kid said “Dad, thanks for protecting my school.” What she didn’t understand is I was protecting our culture by saying ENOUGH and doing something about it.
How many citizens would have ignored the potential vandalism? That’s my point – no body stands up…. We need to stand up to the press and the movie industry! Enough vulgarity.
Joseph Lieberman? Oh, I can’t even go there. What a pawn that man is, and for now I’m through with this discussion because this is not the forum for an ongoing debate on the war debacle or our corrupt and evil (yes, I think they ARE evil) war-mongering administration. We should have never ever invaded Iraq, and if they didn’t have oil, we wouldn’t have. You think we’re going to STOP the violence? It’s only escalated because of our presence. All the lies and propaganda the average American swallows without even questioning what they are being told absolutely makes me cringe. You are obviously a right-winger. That’s your choice. But please don’t tell me we got into this war to spread democrazy (yes, I deliberately added the “z”) and give birth to a nation. How could it get any worse if we pull out our troops?
roark….GET OUT…let them kill off as many as they can and then we can simply bomb the rest of the bad guys and be done with it…we can win this mess it is just money for the government to keep it running…we are the bad guys…we can not defeat 100 years of bad blood…we just need to let the military kill them all and not worry about politics….we need to keep our money at home and stop wasting out money “protecting” people who will never be able to be protected… When the bad guys are in charge then we simply bomb them and distroy them all….very simple military tactic….no political agenda…kill the bad guys
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
