0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2006 06:53 pm
Stop being pathetic, Icann, ask yourself if you were planning the overthrow of a regime, or the hostile takeover of a corporation, if you wouldn't plan for a counter attack by forces unknown to you.

Of course you would have, you are not a megalomaniac named Donald.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 04:36 am
ican wrote:
If John Kerry or George Soros knew that, when did one or the other know that?

If John Kerry or George Soros knew that October 16, 2002, why didn't John Kerry or George Soros say so October 16, 2002?


This is dumb ican. You seem to have an abnormal fixation on Kerry and Soros.

But I have to admit this not as stupid as your proposal to drop nuclear bombs on Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

ican wrote:
My recommendation is for the USA allied with Israel to completely defeat Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas.

How shall we accomplish that? The answer is obvious. The same way we accomplished the end of WWII with Japan: with nuclear weapons.


Tell us ican, just were, specifically, do you propose to drop those nuclear bombs?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 03:58 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Stop being pathetic, Icann, ask yourself if you were planning the overthrow of a regime, or the hostile takeover of a corporation, if you wouldn't plan for a counter attack by forces unknown to you.

Of course you would have, you are not a megalomaniac named Donald.

Of course I would have!

But I'm a genuous ... whoops ... genius. Laughing

That military guy Scheid claims they never thought of it! Rolling Eyes

Quote:
... the fighting and insurgent attacks going on today would have been hard to predict, Scheid said.

"We really thought that after the collapse of the regime we were going to do all these humanitarian type things," he said. "We thought this would go pretty fast and we'd be able to get out of there. We really didn't anticipate them to continue to fight the way they did or come back the way they are.

"Now we're going more toward a Civil War. We didn't see that coming."


What's my point? They screwed up, but what reason do we have to believe that Kerry or Soros at that time would not have likewise screwed up? We are governed by a fallible government under Bush and we were governed by a fallible governent under Clinton. Bush did the right thing the wrong way. Clinton did the wrong thing the wrong way.

So what! The problem they both left us has to be fixed. Who is more likely to do the right thing and do it the right way? Why do you think so?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 04:27 pm
xingu wrote:

...
You seem to have an abnormal fixation on Kerry and Soros.

Those two seem to me to presently be running the Democratic Party.

But I have to admit this not as stupid as your proposal to drop nuclear bombs on Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
...
Tell us ican, just w[h]ere, specifically, do you propose to drop those nuclear bombs?


Tactical nuclear bombs in Iran, Syria, Lebanon.

In Iran: wipe out their current weapon making, storage and transportation facilities.

In Syria: wipe out their current weapon storage and transportation facilities.

In Lebanon: wipe out their rocket firing facilities.

Then let's talk with IT about their unconditional surrender.

If that doesn't sober up the IT and convince them to abandon killing non-combatants, then threaten tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan: wipe out a city containing a probable IT base.

In Iraq: wipe out a city containing a probable IT base.

Then let's talk with IT about their unconditional surrender.


IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists, et al) are waging war against non-combatants. Protectors of non-combatants are waging war against IT to end IT's war against non-combatants.


Yes, I guess you think I'm nuts. But don't be in any doubt that I think you are either a self-deluded sectarian cool-aid-groupy, or the IT is your client, either pro bono or for a fee.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 04:40 pm
Here are discussed four of your myths.
emphasis by ican
Quote:
San Diego Union-Tribune
August 10, 2006
Myths block Middle East peace hopes
By Lawrence J. Haas

Long-standing conflicts between peoples often create their own myths - over grievances, appropriate uses of force, and likely paths to peace. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East.

With Israel and Hezbollah engaged in escalating conflict, leaders, experts and media the world over assume predictable, if not helpful, positions on the causes, consequences and likely solutions. But the path to real peace lies in clear-eyed thinking, not mythology. Only by discarding shibboleths will the world grapple effectively with the bloodshed of that region.

Thus, we should discard four myths that cloud thinking about the Middle East and today's war:

Myth 1: The path to peace lies in an Israeli-Palestinian resolution. Many think so, including President Carter. That's why he and others call for restarting the Middle East peace process. A resolution on that conflict, they say, would defuse the fighting in southern Lebanon.

But such a resolution presumes that two states, Israel and Palestine, eventually will live side by side in peace. The problem is that key players in today's war do not share that vision.

Hezbollah and Hamas, the terrorist groups that ignited today's flames, and Iran (their key state sponsor) are committed to Israel's destruction. As Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said recently, "There is no solution to this conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."
His only hope for a Palestinian state is one that replaces the Jewish state.

Myth 2: Peace is always better than war. It's tempting to think so. But premature peace can prompt a worse war down the road - especially a peace that strengthens its true enemies.

In this case, a cease-fire that leaves Hezbollah to rule over southern Lebanon, outside the control of that nation's government, would only precipitate more bloodshed. Emboldened that it withstood Israel's onslaught, Hezbollah would restock its shelves with weapons from Iran and plan its next attack, as would its emboldened partners in terrorism, Hamas and Islamic Palestinian Jihad.

More ominously, Iran would feel emboldened. Watching European leaders pressure the United States to contain Israel, Iran's leaders would believe more strongly that the West has no stomach for confrontation. Iran not only would provide more funds, more training, and more support to its terrorist clients, it also would push ahead on its quest to develop nuclear weapons.

Myth 3: Talk is always better than silence. Rather than let Israel forcefully confront Hezbollah and Hamas, critics say, the United States should reach out to Iran and Syria, who hold great sway over them.

The hope for talk is rooted in "rational actor" theory - that all people are reasonable and open to persuasion. But the leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and their like-minded disciples are fanatical, not rational. They seek confrontation, not compromise - victory, not accommodation.

A talk with these fanatics would be worse than useless. It would implicitly put certain issues, such as Israel's existence, on the agenda for discussion. Should President Franklin D. Roosevelt have "talked" to a Hitler while he murdered Jews and conquered Europe? It also could ease the growing pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear program by subsuming that issue in "talk" as well.

Myth 4: Israel is using "disproportionate" force to defend itself. That's true if you see no moral distinction between terrorists who target innocent men, women and children and a state that accidentally kills innocents as it targets terrorists. Or if you see no distinction between terrorists who hide behind civilians and a state that warns civilians to depart before dropping bombs.

When attacked by clear-sighted enemies, nations respond with overwhelming force to eliminate the threat. The United States did that after Pearl Harbor, as did Allied forces against the Nazis.

Indeed, some leaders who urge Israeli restraint have made clear they would practice no restraint themselves. French President Jacques Chirac threatened to use nuclear weapons on any state that directed a terrorist attack on France. What's good for France should be good for Israel.

The myths of the Middle East are enticing. But they will only set back efforts to reach a lasting peace in that troubled region. The only way to make progress is to face realities on the ground.

Larry Haas is a visiting senior fellow at Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 05:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Here are discussed four of your myths.
emphasis by ican
Quote:
San Diego Union-Tribune
August 10, 2006
Myths block Middle East peace hopes
By Lawrence J. Haas

Long-standing conflicts between peoples often create their own myths - over grievances, appropriate uses of force, and likely paths to peace. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East.

With Israel and Hezbollah engaged in escalating conflict, leaders, experts and media the world over assume predictable, if not helpful, positions on the causes, consequences and likely solutions. But the path to real peace lies in clear-eyed thinking, not mythology. Only by discarding shibboleths will the world grapple effectively with the bloodshed of that region.

Thus, we should discard four myths that cloud thinking about the Middle East and today's war:

Myth 1: The path to peace lies in an Israeli-Palestinian resolution. Many think so, including President Carter. That's why he and others call for restarting the Middle East peace process. A resolution on that conflict, they say, would defuse the fighting in southern Lebanon.

But such a resolution presumes that two states, Israel and Palestine, eventually will live side by side in peace. The problem is that key players in today's war do not share that vision.

Hezbollah and Hamas, the terrorist groups that ignited today's flames, and Iran (their key state sponsor) are committed to Israel's destruction. As Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, said recently, "There is no solution to this conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."
His only hope for a Palestinian state is one that replaces the Jewish state.

Myth 2: Peace is always better than war. It's tempting to think so. But premature peace can prompt a worse war down the road - especially a peace that strengthens its true enemies.

In this case, a cease-fire that leaves Hezbollah to rule over southern Lebanon, outside the control of that nation's government, would only precipitate more bloodshed. Emboldened that it withstood Israel's onslaught, Hezbollah would restock its shelves with weapons from Iran and plan its next attack, as would its emboldened partners in terrorism, Hamas and Islamic Palestinian Jihad.

More ominously, Iran would feel emboldened. Watching European leaders pressure the United States to contain Israel, Iran's leaders would believe more strongly that the West has no stomach for confrontation. Iran not only would provide more funds, more training, and more support to its terrorist clients, it also would push ahead on its quest to develop nuclear weapons.

Myth 3: Talk is always better than silence. Rather than let Israel forcefully confront Hezbollah and Hamas, critics say, the United States should reach out to Iran and Syria, who hold great sway over them.

The hope for talk is rooted in "rational actor" theory - that all people are reasonable and open to persuasion. But the leaders of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and their like-minded disciples are fanatical, not rational. They seek confrontation, not compromise - victory, not accommodation.

A talk with these fanatics would be worse than useless. It would implicitly put certain issues, such as Israel's existence, on the agenda for discussion. Should President Franklin D. Roosevelt have "talked" to a Hitler while he murdered Jews and conquered Europe? It also could ease the growing pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear program by subsuming that issue in "talk" as well.

Myth 4: Israel is using "disproportionate" force to defend itself. That's true if you see no moral distinction between terrorists who target innocent men, women and children and a state that accidentally kills innocents as it targets terrorists. Or if you see no distinction between terrorists who hide behind civilians and a state that warns civilians to depart before dropping bombs.

When attacked by clear-sighted enemies, nations respond with overwhelming force to eliminate the threat. The United States did that after Pearl Harbor, as did Allied forces against the Nazis.

Indeed, some leaders who urge Israeli restraint have made clear they would practice no restraint themselves. French President Jacques Chirac threatened to use nuclear weapons on any state that directed a terrorist attack on France. What's good for France should be good for Israel.

The myths of the Middle East are enticing. But they will only set back efforts to reach a lasting peace in that troubled region. The only way to make progress is to face realities on the ground.

Larry Haas is a visiting senior fellow at Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute.


There are two things that will prevent peace in the Middle East.

1. The Palestine/Israel conflict and our unconditional support of Israel.

2. Our invasion of Iraq.

Every poll taken in the Middle East has shown that it is these two things that make Muslims hate us the most. And the hate and anger is increasing with each day.

As long as these two things are not resolved there will always be war.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 05:18 pm
ican wrote:
Those two seem to me to presently be running the Democratic Party.


Little bit out of touch with reality there aren't you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 05:28 pm
I think he's off his meds; the diatribe has gotten quite a bit more acrid lately.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Sep, 2006 11:14 pm
With all the attention being spent on that fictional movie of ABC, it is amazing that this is getting is just basically ignored in these threads. It is big stuff and bears repeating.


Quote:


links found at the source
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 12:20 am
http://i2.tinypic.com/358tmo5.jpghttp://i4.tinypic.com/29ge90l.jpg

source: today's The Guardian, page 7
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 12:51 am
http://i3.tinypic.com/4h0pqac.jpg

Armies have been mobilised, phones tapped, huge rewards offered - yet Osama bin Laden is still at liberty. Does anyone even have the faintest idea where he is?

The hunt
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 12:53 am
Yeah, eastern Pakistan I reckon, in the tribal homelands.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 01:00 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
http://i3.tinypic.com/4h0pqac.jpg

Armies have been mobilised, phones tapped, huge rewards offered - yet Osama bin Laden is still at liberty. Does anyone even have the faintest idea where he is?

The hunt


Good article, Walter, I've read it now. I'll read it again later when I get a paper. Thanks for posting.

By the way I saw a Michael Palin "Himalaya" programme last night and he was in Chitral too, in the Hindu Kush. It's different up there.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 05:13 am
Quote from the link:

A video message last weekend by Adam Yehiye Gadahn, a 28-year-old American al-Qaida convert urging US soldiers to embrace Islam, passed off largely unnoticed. But it could have an ominous significance. After 9/11, Islamic scholars criticised Bin Laden for failing to follow a Qur'an teaching that enemies should be offered a chance to convert before an attack. Now that obligation has been fulfilled, says Scheuer.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 06:32 am
'Pessimistic' report on Iraq leaves little hope in Anbar

Quote:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 12:54 pm
xingu wrote:

...
There are two things that will prevent peace in the Middle East.

1. The Palestine/Israel conflict and our unconditional support of Israel.

2. Our invasion of Iraq.

Every poll taken in the Middle East has shown that it is these two things that make Muslims hate us the most. And the hate and anger is increasing with each day.

As long as these two things are not resolved there will always be war.

Xingu (alias, pro bono groupy), I do not believe that you actually believe what you wrote. You simply do not appear dumb enough to me to believe such.

One implication of what you wrote is the USA must get itself liked by the middle east, before there can be peace in the middle east. Another implication is that Americans can buy peace in the middle east by paying the extortion of those waging war on Americans, Iraqis and Israelies: that is, by abandoning Israel to its would be destroyers, and by abandoning Iraq to its would be destroyers.

Some Muslims hate some Americans and some Muslims hate some Muslims.

The Muslims that hate Americans are the same Muslims that are waging war against Muslim non-combatants and American non-combatants.

The hate and anger of Americans against those IT Muslims waging war against Muslim non-combatants is intensifying rapidly with each tick of the clock.

IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists, et al) are waging war against Muslim non-combatants.

American protectors of Muslim non-combatants are waging war against IT to end IT's war against Muslim non-combatants.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 01:01 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
http://i3.tinypic.com/4h0pqac.jpg

Armies have been mobilised, phones tapped, huge rewards offered - yet Osama bin Laden is still at liberty. Does anyone even have the faintest idea where he is?
...

Osama is cold stone dead rotting in the ground.

Clinton's and Bush's failure's to get Osama was eventually corrected by nature: that is, by Osama's kidney failure.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 01:03 pm
Quote:

Osama is cold stone dead rotting in the ground.

Clinton's and Bush's failure's to get Osama was eventually corrected by nature: that is, by Osama's kidney failure.


= suppostion, or maybe
= assertion, but definately
Not Equal fact. You have a really bad habit of stating things as if they were facts.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 02:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
= suppostion, or maybe
= assertion, but definately
Not Equal fact. You have a really bad habit of stating things as if they were facts.
Cycloptichorn

That's hilarious coming from you: "You have a really bad habit of stating things as if they were facts."

I'll make it easy for you.

What is your evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2006 02:53 pm
I don't have any evidence that he is alive, but as he was known to be alive, and no evidence has been provided that he is dead, there is no reason to believe that he is in fact dead, and certainly no reason to make affirmative assertions that he is dead.

You've been reading too much by that traitor Ledeen. Plus, you seem to be, I don't know, a little out in left field these days, what with your obsession about Soros...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 10:17:51