hobitbob wrote:Brand x wrote:UN good offices? UN, which is a panel of thugs, has but one purpose, to unite against America and extort all the money from our back pocket as they can. An Iraqi sitting on that panel to represent the human right's seat? That's but one example of the lunacy abound within
Eh? Care to provide evidence for this assertion? BTW, have you a brother named...oh nevermind.
Here's a couple of examples of UN corruption, one a case where they lobby for money from UN members, including the U.S., and when the money is released, it ends up back in the hands of UN officials by way of crime rings. Again thugs running things. Another case is the 'oil for food' debacle that they were incharge of, instead of it's designed purposes, Saddam skimmed billions off oil margins and paid someone( probably Kofi himself) to turn their head.
Corruption A
Whopper corruption.
hobit, I'm not even a economist, and even a dope like me could predict that the Bush tax cut wouldn't do anything for our economy. When 90 percent of the tax cut goes to the richest in our economy, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a few hundred dollars here and a few hundred dollars there isn't going to affect our ten trillion dollar economy. It's not so much that our country had a surplus before Bush took over the helm; it's that his foreign and domestic policies had no plan or goals, and he's used up his six bullets against a boogy man that doesn't exist. The hell of it is, most Americans think he's done a good job for all of us. I wonder if anybody's feet is wet yet?
Victory isn't even an 'exit', we are still in Germany and Japan, but for those impatient ones, read this.
This admirable American characteristic (with apologies to the red Indians we overran) has been compounded (and distorted) with the rise of the baby boomers. The first television-raised generation grafted on to a healthy impatience the similar, but less admirable, traits of short attention spans and the urge to instant gratification. We boomers are now in command as the senior editors and producers in the media, and most of the senior members of government. Even boomer President Bush -- who has famously called himself a patient man (about an hour and a half before ordering our military into combat) -- unadvisedly suggested several weeks ago that the Iraq project could be judged by next November. He and we should not be so impatient. But it is going to be a hard impulse to overcome. We live our lives in fast forward. We buy our food already cooked. We get our Christmas trees already cut. We, too, often make love before we have made friends. We are used to seeing an international crises resolved in an hour on "The West Wing."
The most impatient of us all are the media. Two weeks into the Afghan war they declared a quagmire. In Iraq, they declared a quagmire within days. And now they are declaring nation building a failure after a few months. If they had been covering WWII, they would have declared defeat at Wake Island in 1942 and Kasserine Pass in 1943. A month after the D-Day landing in 1944, with our troops still bogged down in the Belgian hedgerows, they would have declared a quagmire. Nation building would, of course, have been deemed a failure. In the winter of 1946-47, the British were freezing and lacked light in their homes for want of electricity generated from coal, while they suffered by on powdered eggs and a scarcity of vegetables -- and they won the war. In Germany, bridges remained broken, canals clogged and rails twisted. Berliners were still literally starving and freezing to death. After all, the Marshall Plan was not even announced until June 5, 1947, more than two years after the Nazis surrendered. Whether to de-Nazify was never finally decided. We used what Nazis we needed, while punishing others.
Impatience has served us reasonably well in the past, but it could be the death of us now. Because beating Saddam's army is not the end of the war but the beginning of it. The media complain that we have stirred up a hornet's nest of terrorists by going into Iraq. But that's the point. To kill the hornets, one has to go where the hornets are. We have to subdue and transform the Middle East -- or accept it as a permanent breeding ground for terrorism. We have to transform a culture. We have never done such a thing before, but with patience, persistence and an iron will, we might succeed. September 11 should have taught us that we have no choice.
Those who say we should turn over responsibilities to an international set (who are already mentally committed to appeasing the terrorist culture), are impatient not for success, but for a nightmare world of biologically and nuclear armed jihadists. The United Nations, France and the rest will never support going after the terrorists in Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia -- although one way or the other it will take that to be successful. If others want to help, good. But we must keep our fate in our own hands. That will take an untypical American patience. We had best start teaching it to our children -- because success will take that long.
Tony Blankley
The oil for food thing has been thoroughly dissected here. The blame lies ion the Iraqi end more than on the UN end. As for the Somalia thing, the US played a large part in the failure.
Brand x wrote:
Those who say we should turn over responsibilities to an international set (who are already mentally committed to appeasing the terrorist culture), are impatient not for success, but for a nightmare world of biologically and nuclear armed jihadists. The United Nations, France and the rest will never support going after the terrorists in Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia -- although one way or the other it will take that to be successful. If others want to help, good. But we must keep our fate in our own hands. That will take an untypical American patience. We had best start teaching it to our children -- because success will take that long.
Tony Blankley
Brand X, care to cite where that screed came from? I am actually rather disapointed to see someone resort to "French bashing," since it is the intellectually shallow approach. The Europeans have far more experience with terrorism than the US has. Perhaps there is a reason they do things the way they do, with negotiation and police raids, rather than brain off full speed ahead invasions like the US. The French, German, Italian, Spanish, and British governments all dealt with daily terrorist threats in the 1970s and 1980s. What terrorist activity, besides the catastrophic events of Oklahoma City (a domestic actor), abortion clinic bombings (again domestic), and 11th September, 2001 ( a catastrophic event, whose scale tends to make it a poor example for basing policy) has the US experience with?
hobitbob wrote:Brand X, care to cite where that screed came from?
Well, if I knew what screed was, you experts in penis sizes use some strange words.
Craven -- I wouldn't call that "dissent"!! Do you?
The party line is the party line -- it ain't pretty and it aint respectable! Above all, it shows lack of independence. Scary... if you are old enough to be a voter.
brandx' unidentified source wrote:We have to subdue and transform the Middle East -- or accept it as a permanent breeding ground for terrorism. We have to transform a culture. We have never done such a thing before, but with patience, persistence and an iron will, we might succeed. September 11 should have taught us that we have no choice.
The hubris here is incredible. Why should "we" subdue and transform the ME? Into what? What are we transforming this "culture" into? Which culture?
Are ytou aware that the ME is
not a monolith, but a plethora of cultures and traditions? The shallowness of the American public's perception of this region never fails to astound me. You are going to have to do better than this.
hobitbob wrote:Brand x wrote:
Those who say we should turn over responsibilities to an international set (who are already mentally committed to appeasing the terrorist culture), are impatient not for success, but for a nightmare world of biologically and nuclear armed jihadists. The United Nations, France and the rest will never support going after the terrorists in Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia -- although one way or the other it will take that to be successful. If others want to help, good. But we must keep our fate in our own hands. That will take an untypical American patience. We had best start teaching it to our children -- because success will take that long.
Tony Blankley
Brand X, care to cite where that screed came from? I am actually rather disapointed to see someone resort to "French bashing," since it is the intellectually shallow approach. The Europeans have far more experience with terrorism than the US has. Perhaps there is a reason they do things the way they do, with negotiation and police raids, rather than brain off full speed ahead invasions like the US. The French, German, Italian, Spanish, and British governments all dealt with daily terrorist threats in the 1970s and 1980s. What terrorist activity, besides the catastrophic events of Oklahoma City (a domestic actor), abortion clinic bombings (again domestic), and 11th September, 2001 ( a catastrophic event, whose scale tends to make it a poor example for basing policy) has the US experience with?
Nagotiating with Saddam worked real well, and oh yeah there was that Hitler guy, the little nut in N. Korea, Castro. Just go back in history and see how many tyrants/totalitarian/terrorist were negotiated with to a peaceful ending, more often than not they have to be exterminated, you can't change history.
I figured out who your author is, x. He is the sweaty fat chap on the McLaughlin group that dresses like a 1930s gangster. Considering the paper he works for (Washington Times, proud property of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and as far to the right as any Murdoch publication) the opinion doesn't strike me as particularly valid. I'm sure you are fond of the source though. You strike me as a dyed in the wool Daniel Pipes fan, and the WashTimes has been his biggest cheerleader.
Brand x wrote:Nagotiating with Saddam worked real well, and oh yeah there was that Hitler guy, the little nut in N. Korea, Castro. Just go back in history and see how many tyrants/totalitarian/terrorist were negotiated with to a peaceful ending, more often than not they have to be exterminated, you can't change history.
Reading history might be a good idea though, my friend. Hussein was effectively contained. He posed no threat to the US or his neighbors. The inspectors were working their little tails off and finding no trace of the forbidden weapons (in hindsight, we can understand why...they weren't there), and he couldn't live forever.
Kim Il Sung died, and his son is now in charge. He is a real threat, but the Bush administration tends not to pay much attention to him. Fortunately they don't follow your example. Would you enjoy nuclear war?
Castro? Are you really invoking the bearded embarraser of the US? We can't kill him (although we have certainly tried),and when he dies Cuba will probably become a typical third world nation ripe for the plucking by the US and its attendant corporations.
The only example of your that is valid is Hitler.
hobitbob wrote:I figured out who your author is, x. He is the sweaty fat chap on the McLaughlin group that dresses like a 1930s gangster. Considering the paper he works for (Washington Times, proud property of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and as far to the right as any Murdoch publication) the opinion doesn't strike me as particularly valid. I'm sure you are fond of the source though. You strike me as a dyed in the wool Daniel Pipes fan, and the WashTimes has been his biggest cheerleader.
BTW, I lifted it from another open forum, good thing we didn't use your clairvoyance in the Iraq case after all, I had no idea who the guy is. Anyway, if you have issues with him and his writings, contact him for a debate.
hobitbob wrote:I figured out who your author is, x. He is the sweaty fat chap on the McLaughlin group that dresses like a 1930s gangster. Considering the paper he works for (Washington Times, proud property of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and as far to the right as any Murdoch publication) the opinion doesn't strike me as particularly valid. I'm sure you are fond of the source though. You strike me as a dyed in the wool Daniel Pipes fan, and the WashTimes has been his biggest cheerleader.
I see attacking the messager instead of the message is still alive. You complain about French bashing as being "the intellectually shallow approach." yet you go out of your way to insult the writer of an article instead of the article. That's deep thinking.
hobitbob wrote:Brand x wrote:Nagotiating with Saddam worked real well, and oh yeah there was that Hitler guy, the little nut in N. Korea, Castro. Just go back in history and see how many tyrants/totalitarian/terrorist were negotiated with to a peaceful ending, more often than not they have to be exterminated, you can't change history.
Reading history might be a good idea though, my friend. Hussein was effectively contained. He posed no threat to the US or his neighbors. The inspectors were working their little tails off and finding no trace of the forbidden weapons (in hindsight, we can understand why...they weren't there), and he couldn't live forever.
Kim Il Sung died, and his son is now in charge. He is a real threat, but the Bush administration tends not to pay much attention to him. Fortunately they don't follow your example. Would you enjoy nuclear war?
Castro? Are you really invoking the bearded embarraser of the US? We can't kill him (although we have certainly tried),and when he dies Cuba will probably become a typical third world nation ripe for the plucking by the US and its attendant corporations.
The only example of your that is valid is Hitler.
If a nuclear war does occur on Earth, I want to move to the planet you reside on.
I've decided to scroll all these posters who sound like the same person with different ID's.
McGentrix wrote:hobitbob wrote:I figured out who your author is, x. He is the sweaty fat chap on the McLaughlin group that dresses like a 1930s gangster. Considering the paper he works for (Washington Times, proud property of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and as far to the right as any Murdoch publication) the opinion doesn't strike me as particularly valid. I'm sure you are fond of the source though. You strike me as a dyed in the wool Daniel Pipes fan, and the WashTimes has been his biggest cheerleader.
I see attacking the messager instead of the message is still alive. You complain about French bashing as being "the intellectually shallow approach." yet you go out of your way to insult the writer of an article instead of the article. That's deep thinking.
I addresed the article above this post. Try and keep up, yes?
hobitbob wrote:Brand x wrote:Nagotiating with Saddam worked real well, and oh yeah there was that Hitler guy, the little nut in N. Korea, Castro. Just go back in history and see how many tyrants/totalitarian/terrorist were negotiated with to a peaceful ending, more often than not they have to be exterminated, you can't change history.
Reading history might be a good idea though, my friend. Hussein was effectively contained. He posed no threat to the US or his neighbors. The inspectors were working their little tails off and finding no trace of the forbidden weapons (in hindsight, we can understand why...they weren't there), and he couldn't live forever.
Kim Il Sung died, and his son is now in charge. He is a real threat, but the Bush administration tends not to pay much attention to him. Fortunately they don't follow your example. Would you enjoy nuclear war?
Castro? Are you really invoking the bearded embarraser of the US? We can't kill him (although we have certainly tried),and when he dies Cuba will probably become a typical third world nation ripe for the plucking by the US and its attendant corporations.
The only example of your that is valid is Hitler.
With these brilliant deductions and wonderful analysis of current events, you should be running for office. It's a shame we have these intellectually inferiors like Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush running the show. You should be making our foriegn affair policy instead of the people now who have made their entire careers out of it.
Bah- it's late.
Thank God you finally caught on, McG. Exactly.
Brand X wrote:hobitbob wrote:I figured out who your author is, x. He is the sweaty fat chap on the McLaughlin group that dresses like a 1930s gangster. Considering the paper he works for (Washington Times, proud property of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and as far to the right as any Murdoch publication) the opinion doesn't strike me as particularly valid. I'm sure you are fond of the source though. You strike me as a dyed in the wool Daniel Pipes fan, and the WashTimes has been his biggest cheerleader.
BTW, I lifted it from another open forum, good thing we didn't use your clairvoyance in the Iraq case after all, I had no idea who the guy is. Anyway, if you have issues with him and his writings, contact him for a debate.
I find it hard to believe you would post an article unless you felt it represented your opinion. Therefore criticism of the article is implicit criticism of your opinion. Failure to attribute the source was merely sloppy work. I have no idea what you mean by clairvoyance.
McGentrix wrote:
With these brilliant deductions and wonderful analysis of current events, you should be running for office. It's a shame we have these intellectually inferiors like Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush running the show. You should be making our foriegn affair policy instead of the people now who have made their entire careers out of it.
Bah- it's late.
Which part of my analysis do you disagree with?
