the forever war

rubycodez

Mon Apr 23 09:20:57 -0700 2007

manage

Probably at least 33% of the reason we went to war in Iraq was because Saddam was a threat to Israel, and we have very influential pro-Israel people in our government and advising our government, and involved in the funding of our government.  We definitely did Israel's "dirty work" for them.  Now there are many things for which I admire Israel, but there's also some bad things that country has done while getting a huge slice of the U.S. foreign aid pie, and I think we're doing way too much for so rich a country.  They can stand on their own two feet and act bearing full responsibility for their actions without implied threat of U.S. backup.

Back on subject, even if the U.S. did nothing, it is a certainty Israel will not let Iran complete construction of fission weapons.  They've already promised that.  But what deals has our government made with them on this matter?  For Israel to attack underground processing facilities in a non-nuclear manner, maybe they need U.S. weaponry that's just hot off the manufacturing line, 30+ meter underground penetration of reinforced facilities with conventional weapons is no easy trick. 

If the current administration really wishes to attack Iran, they have two months after the 2008 elections as a deadline to either pull outright offensive. If Hillary gets elected, more of a chance the status quo gets preserved, and maybe we go to war with Iran anyway.  Someone else getting elected could possibly derail the train to war.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Mon Apr 23 09:51:55 -0700 2007

manage

USA soil, maybe that nice big peninsula off the Gulf of California that Google Maps just shows as a big white space.

Isn't that part of Mexico?

I cannot think of any scenario where an invasion of Iran will not spark a Middle Eastern conflict with Israel vs the Arab race,

If that's the case, why didn't the invasion of Iraq provoke such a response? If I'm running a fairly secular Arab state, why would I come to the defence of a country that would like to spread it's Islamic revolution to my part of the Arab world?

 and I cannot think of any scenario where a Middle Eastern conflict with Israel vs the Arab race will not lead to World War Three, so the logical conclusion is this...

Why would the rest of the world get drawn in, at least to the point of conflict? I could see Russia and China taking political potshots, I can't see them getting militarily involved. The world would just stand by and watch, call UK/USA a bunch of names, anti-americanism would increase. Big F*cking Deal - you get used to being hated after a while.


IF the USA wants a World War then maybe we should give them one, not by fighting amongst ourselves for a change, but by fighting the USA.

And that would be in our interest, how?

three generations of Bush so far, what are the odds of that in a democratic state?

2 Bush's and fairly high. The people running democracies aren't just random people picked up off the street. You need the right "connections" in order win the popularity contest that is voting, and if politics is the family business then you've got a better chance of success. The Bushes aren't even that big a political family compared to the Kennedys.


And all those "right to bear arms" types make nice draftees for the new war machine, solves unemployment too, and a host of social and domestic political issues.

Except that draftees aren't that good and nobody wants to be drafted. America would implode before the draft could come back. America would be better off waiting a couple years, have a few more Darpa Grand Challenges and then send the machines in, Terminator style.

certainly such a war will unite the EU into a federation in a way that nothing else could, a Federation with borders which fade into African, Arab and Asian cultures, races and religions, closer than neighbours, actual in-laws in our own family

Nothing will unite the EU, not even with some grand unified hatred of America. If there was a WWIII, the EU would collapse, not unify.

Even amongst white Anglo-Saxon Christians anti-american sentiment is growing rapidly.

I think it actually has little to do with any real anti-americanism - it's a combination of just being left wing (the US Daily Show would be anti-american if most of the cast weren't Americans) and that Americans are the last ethnic group it's socially acceptable to take the piss out of (seeing as even the French are now becoming off limits). However, it really does piss me off that the people who spout the most vile anti-american diatribes are the ones who would be first to come to the defence of any other group being vilified in that way. I also think there's an element of transferred self-hatred (it's easier to blame the US than it is to take responsibility for one's own problems)


What I do know is that those of you in the USA opening your virtual newspapers most certainly are not seeing and hearing what the Citizens of Europe think and feel and say and believ

But then, people in Europe aren't being told what the Citizens of North America think, feel, say and believe either  - we get just get an obscured picture designed to boost ratings with a "daily minute of hate, sponsored by the left-wing media". Probably more so in the UK, as the reporting on America is lazy at best.


Here is a challenge for you all, do something different, draw up a list of questions, I will put them to Europeans that I know,

Ok, here's a question - have you considered fixing your own damn country before criticizing the USA? The UK is just as responsible for Mess'o'potamia as the US is. Arguably more so, as the UK is the one who drew up most of the borders in the middle east in the first place (and generally dicked around with the area in the name of the Empire). Bitching about Bush after Blair won an election after Iraq had already gone horribly wrong is hypocritical.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

GuyFawkes

Mon Apr 23 17:14:49 -0700 2007

manage

OK, You seem to have a hard on for me here so I'll reply, you raise some valid points about your perspective which need answering.

USA soil, maybe that nice big peninsula off the Gulf of California that Google Maps just shows as a big white space.

Isn't that part of Mexico?

Mmm, isn't Israel part of Palestine? Or are we going to use a different moral rulebook, again....

I cannot think of any scenario where an invasion of Iran will not spark a Middle Eastern conflict with Israel vs the Arab race,

If that's the case, why didn't the invasion of Iraq provoke such a response? If I'm running a fairly secular Arab state, why would I come to the defence of a country that would like to spread it's Islamic revolution to my part of the Arab world?

You ask two questions.
1/ I've heard several answers from Arabs, take your pick from "we wanted to see if they would fare better than the russians" / "Saddam was a mad dog anyway" / "Iraq is the least homogenous arab state anyway" / "the Americans were clever, and boiled the first frog slowly"
2/ Better an Islamic revolution that I can hitch a ride on, than being raped by Haliburton.

Did you see the Saddam hanging video? A bunch of braying monkeys trying to demean a man who died with utter class. Any arabs that thought Saddam was a mad dog now believe that he was a martyr.

 and I cannot think of any scenario where a Middle Eastern conflict with Israel vs the Arab race will not lead to World War Three, so the logical conclusion is this...

Why would the rest of the world get drawn in, at least to the point of conflict? I could see Russia and China taking political potshots, I can't see them getting militarily involved. The world would just stand by and watch, call UK/USA a bunch of names, anti-americanism would increase. Big F*cking Deal - you get used to being hated after a while.

Israel has nukes and bio weapons, facing it's own annihilation they WILL deploy them.
Please study your history, how did WW1 start? In the middle east. In the UK about 1 in 1,000 are Jewish, 1 in 50 are Muslim, so there are 20 Muslims to every Jew. If / when Israel goes down in flames here in the UK with a population of 60 million we will have 60,000 Jews, and their property, at the mercy of 1.2 Million Muslims. Parts of Europes cities will be in flames.

Please remember, the Middle East is "local" to us, I can drive there in less time that you can drive from LA to NY.


IF the USA wants a World War then maybe we should give them one, not by fighting amongst ourselves for a change, but by fighting the USA.

And that would be in our interest, how?

Because the Middle East is local. World War 3 won't be fought on USA soil, not mainland North American soil, nor close enough for refugees or quislings. Besides, the USA doesn't have any oil, the Muslims in the Middle East do, the Muslims in the Far East do, the Muslims in Africa do, whereas the USA can't afford, logistically, to sieze, hold and control all that oil, half a world away.

In war nations pick the side they think is going to leave them better off, not the moral highground. We (UK) signed a pact with Adolf, remember...

three generations of Bush so far, what are the odds of that in a democratic state?

2 Bush's and fairly high. The people running democracies aren't just random people picked up off the street. You need the right "connections" in order win the popularity contest that is voting, and if politics is the family business then you've got a better chance of success. The Bushes aren't even that big a political family compared to the Kennedys.

Learn your history. 3 Generations of note. 4 really if you include Sam. The Bushes are a more successful political clan than the Kennedys were.
Nepotism like that doesn't happen ANYWHERE else in the world, except banana states, OK we have our UK Royal Family (bunch of germans anyway) but they are just figureheads.

We have Hilary Benn, son of Tony, but Tony never made it big and nor will Hilary. Churchill boy is about too, but it pales into insignificance compared to what goes on in the USA, which is more akin to Tribal politics and political appointments in Africa.

And all those "right to bear arms" types make nice draftees for the new war machine, solves unemployment too, and a host of social and domestic political issues.

Except that draftees aren't that good and nobody wants to be drafted. America would implode before the draft could come back. America would be better off waiting a couple years, have a few more Darpa Grand Challenges and then send the machines in, Terminator style.

Dude, ever since the Royal Navy press gangs people have been saying draftees aren't any good, and drafting people, just ask Dubya about the draft.
America imploding? Not a chance, human nature has not changed, and I defy you to cite a single example of the hundreds of states that have imposed conscription where it has resulted in civil revolt or an "implosion" of any kind.
As for DARPA challenges and Terminator style wars, I've yet to meet a common soldier who wouldn't spit in your eye for suggesting it.

A thousand genuine T-1000 series terminators would not, in reality, augment the EXISTING US military significantly, and the current humongous disparity in technical capability between the sides is borne out by the remarkably low US body bag count, all things considered...

yet.....

no rational and impartial observer could claim ANY reduction in the guerilla warfare capacity of the Iraqui militiamen since the shock and awe campaign started, if anything they are improving their game in the biggest training field on the planet.

certainly such a war will unite the EU into a federation in a way that nothing else could, a Federation with borders which fade into African, Arab and Asian cultures, races and religions, closer than neighbours, actual in-laws in our own family

Nothing will unite the EU, not even with some grand unified hatred of America. If there was a WWIII, the EU would collapse, not unify.

Those exact same words were said about the various English factions before we were united into a Kingdom, as civilisation and technology moves on nation states naturally grow in size and population as they amalgamate.

Don't forget, on many levels the EU and Adolf have exactly the same goals, to create a united and federated Europe.

Even amongst white Anglo-Saxon Christians anti-american sentiment is growing rapidly.

I think it actually has little to do with any real anti-americanism - it's a combination of just being left wing (the US Daily Show would be anti-american if most of the cast weren't Americans) and that Americans are the last ethnic group it's socially acceptable to take the piss out of (seeing as even the French are now becoming off limits). However, it really does piss me off that the people who spout the most vile anti-american diatribes are the ones who would be first to come to the defence of any other group being vilified in that way. I also think there's an element of transferred self-hatred (it's easier to blame the US than it is to take responsibility for one's own problems)

I dunno, I'm seeing and hearing real anti-american (eg anti the state of america and american imperialism) quite openly on a daily basis, I am VERY strongly minded of being in certain parts of France such as Belle Isle during the seventies when the men would mutter openly about "Le boche" whenever they saw a Grundig or BMW logo...

Don't forget that during "shock and awe" the perimeter security at B52 air bases here were defending against white anglo saxon christian english people, not ragheads, who absolutely WOULD have invaded the runways and done a Tianenmen Square if given the opportunity.

What I do know is that those of you in the USA opening your virtual newspapers most certainly are not seeing and hearing what the Citizens of Europe think and feel and say and believ

But then, people in Europe aren't being told what the Citizens of North America think, feel, say and believe either  - we get just get an obscured picture designed to boost ratings with a "daily minute of hate, sponsored by the left-wing media". Probably more so in the UK, as the reporting on America is lazy at best.

I agree, mushrooms kept in the dark and fed on shit on both sides of the pond.

Here is a challenge for you all, do something different, draw up a list of questions, I will put them to Europeans that I know,

Ok, here's a question - have you considered fixing your own damn country before criticizing the USA? The UK is just as responsible for Mess'o'potamia as the US is. Arguably more so, as the UK is the one who drew up most of the borders in the middle east in the first place (and generally dicked around with the area in the name of the Empire). Bitching about Bush after Blair won an election after Iraq had already gone horribly wrong is hypocritical.

Here is your answer.
Over a million people in a nation of 60 million, so the USA equivalent is 7 million people descending on DC, protested the war in London, Blair took no notice, his tongue was stuck so far up Dubyas asshole. __THAT__ is the biggest problem this country has at present, like Napoleon said, a nation of shopkeepers and we sold our backbone to the US of A foreign policy.

Regarding the HISTORICAL problems in the middle east, yeah, it started WW1, and most of the major European countries are damnably guilty for it, but we at least did not deny the history, and we did as a state try our best to warn our special friends in america that NO-ONE had ever gone into the middle east and persia and come out without being kicked in the balls, nobody listened, nobody wanted to, especially when the russians agreed.

Blair winning re-election after the war, aye, a disgrace, he should be on trial with Saddam and Dubya, but our political system is bankrupt, look who stood against him, a milksop who couldn't pull the skin off a pudding.

Me, I didn't vote for ANY of the bastards, and I didn't take the kings shilling and go off to war because it pays more than the dole or incinerating cattle, and as an aside, nobody thinks Blair's re-election was rigged.

I criticise the UK too, loudly and often, look where it got France, without whom arguably the USA would still be British, cheese eating surrender monkeys......

Yorktown, Virginia, where the US army bottled up Cornwallis and forced him to surrender, which pretty much won the War of Independence, which should be every american patriots greatest thing, except, it was the cheese eating surrender monkeys army and navy (under de grasse) actually fought and won that one, cos the american army was stretched too thin to do anything.

Battle of Monongahela (Ohio 1755) french troops absolutely MASSACRED an anglo american force twice it's size, the only anglo american officer to get out alive went on to great things, he became first president of the united states, a george washington

The cheese eating surrender monkeys were also the only army EVER to take all of continental europe, under bonaparte.

The British killed thousands of americans, ON AMERICAN SOIL, during the war, hell, we burned DC to the ground, the Japs never even came close, that even blows 9/11 away, but you like us cos Tony Blair has his tongue up Dubyas ass while Chirac, correctly, said it was a bogus war.

Incidentally in about 700 AD it was the French who stopped and turned the tide of Muslim expansion into europe through spain.

The wermacht is a nice comparison to Iraq, a modern well equipped army against an enemy who had already been whipped once and basically had not rebuilt and re armed, the wermacht lost some 30,000 men taking europe in two years, thanks to all those long land borders with neighbouring countries, english channel saved us.

Those who do not learn (from) history are doomed to repeat it.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Charles E Hill

Mon Apr 23 18:03:23 -0700 2007

manage

Mmm, isn't Israel part of Palestine? Or are we going to use a different moral rulebook, again....

Fine.  You convince the U.N. to partition Baja California as the new home for the Jews; demonstrate a credible, historical link of the peoples to that area; and get the backing of most of the Jews who you're going to move.  I'll deal with Mexico.

1/ I've heard several answers from Arabs, take your pick from "we wanted to see if they would fare better than the russians" / "Saddam was a mad dog anyway" / "Iraq is the least homogeneous Arab state anyway" / "the Americans were clever, and boiled the first frog slowly"

The same people who couldn't give interviews for days, when Baghdad fell because they just couldn't believe Saddam was lying to them about the progress!  Allah is on their side!  How could Iraq have been conquered so quickly?  This can't be happening.

Same excuses, different day.   When push comes to shove, relying on the indignation of the man in the Amman cafe is about as reliable as the one in the London pub or American bar.  Talk is cheap.

Did you see the Saddam hanging video? A bunch of braying monkeys trying to demean a man who died with utter class. Any arabs that thought Saddam was a mad dog now believe that he was a martyr.

No, not all.  Those braying asses were Arabs, not Americans.  Sunni and Shia can't stand each other and take it to levels we in the West can barely comprehend.

Summary of comments on the French:

Yup, sorry.  If we can't use "If not for us you'd be speaking German!", then you can't bring up the French assistance in our Revolution.  Hell, we've got 150 years on them!  (And I think the American attitude of "What have you done for me lately" is inexcusable.)

I didn't vote for any of the bastards, either.  They are, however, the big boys on the block and I don't ever see them standing trial except in the history books.

And the Right to Bear Arms group in the U.S. wouldn't be good for draftees, not because draftees aren't useful.  Because they don't trust the government AT ALL, in most cases.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

duhavid

Tue Apr 24 21:39:14 -0700 2007

manage

"Fine.  You convince the U.N. to partition Baja California as the new home for the Jews; demonstrate a credible, historical link of the peoples to that area; and get the backing of most of the Jews who you're going to move.  I'll deal with Mexico."

I dont think that puts it in perspective....  It doesnt affect you, just Mexicans.

Mexico used to possess much of California.  Say that all the hype around "La Raza" started
being more than just talk, that illegal immigrants from Mexico were commiting acts of terrorism
in California, and the UN decided that the US should have a chunk carved out of it
"because it is the historic homeland of Mexicans".  Americans who have settled the land
are tossed out, no right of return, and they are all second class citizens, those who stay.

Your honest reaction:  "where is my rifle", or "oh well, the UN decided, we just need to accept it"?

Before you get too far off the beam, no, I would not support givng Israel back to the Arabs,
and I do think that the Arab extremists are threatening the US, and I dont think we should just roll over,
but I can understand why they are upset about Israel, and upset with the US for making
it possible for them to stay there.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Tue Apr 24 03:54:37 -0700 2007

manage

Mmm, isn't Israel part of Palestine? Or are we going to use a different moral rulebook, again....

What does the partitoning of  palestine have to do with direct US involvement? It was under British rule that enough Jews immigrated to Palestine that a jewish state even became a possibilty. It was the British who no longer had the will to stand up to Jewish terrorists and decided on a cut and run strategy to get the hell out of the place. The US got involved because of the cold war, as a decidedly pro-US satellite in the Middle East was seen as a good thing (helped along with US demographics)

A bunch of braying monkeys trying to demean a man who died with utter class. Any arabs that thought Saddam was a mad dog now believe that he was a martyr.

Except it was Arabs (albeit Shiite ones) who were baying for his blood. He wasn't a martyr to them.

If / when Israel goes down in flames here in the UK with a population of 60 million we will have 60,000 Jews, and their property, at the mercy of 1.2 Million Muslims.

And we have something known as the rule of law so that the Jews will not be at the mercy of anybody.

Parts of Europes cities will be in flames.

Some parts of European cities have already been in flames. Look at Paris. Wait a second, the French were against the war, so why are they having issues with their muslim residents?

Please remember, the Middle East is "local" to us

In which case, it's local to the US as well, as some parts of the US have a large population of immigrants from the Middle East. There are Americans who can "drive to the Middle East in less time than it takes to get to NY or LA", so your point is?

Besides, the USA doesn't have any oil

Except for all the oil in Texas and Alaska

We have Hilary Benn, son of Tony, but Tony never made it big and nor will Hilary. Churchill boy is about too, but it pales into insignificance compared to what goes on in the USA, which is more akin to Tribal politics and political appointments in Africa.


Have a closer look at MPs biographies. You'd be surprised by the large occurrence of close family members who were either themselves MPs or at least considered to be among the "great and the good". And also have a look at how many of them went to OxBridge.

If you want tribal, look at what's happening with cash for peerages. The person who gets to decide if charges should be brought is the Lord Chancellor, who happens to be Blair's ex-flatmate. Not even in "nepotistic" America would you get that.


states that have imposed conscription where it has resulted in civil revolt or an "implosion" of any kind.

The US with Vietnam? And that was with a generation that was used to conscription. I do not see 2 or 3 generations of Americans who have never had the draft allowing themselves to be randomly selected to die in some foreign hell hole. Any politician who voted for the draft would be voting for his removal at the next election.


As for DARPA challenges and Terminator style wars, I've yet to meet a common soldier who wouldn't spit in your eye for suggesting it.

No kidding. People hate loosing their jobs to machines.

nation states naturally grow in size and population as they amalgamate.

They also have a tendency to fall apart as well. Especially states that are super states and not nation states. And the EU is a super state, not a nation state.


I dunno, I'm seeing and hearing real anti-american

Yeah, but who else can you be openly anti these days? No one. Some people need somebody external to blame for their own problems. And pretty much every problem levelled against America applies equally  to the UK. Arguably, the problems apply even more to the UK, seeing as we were dicking about with the world long before America was a separate country (hell, America's the result of our actions hundreds of years ago).

we sold our backbone to the US of A foreign policy.

Except that US foreign policy is usually in our interests as well. The UK's economy is more closely tied to the US than it is to Europe. Remember how the main excuse for not joining the Euro was that our economy isn't in the same cycle as Europe, but is in the same cycle as the US. Britain has a lot of economic interest in the US, so, unless there is some direct conflict such as with US/EU trade wars, what's good for America is good for us.

I'm not even convinced by the "Blair was a lap dog, just following along" theory. Blair was happily militarily intervening in foreign countries long before Bush was president.

problems in the middle east, yeah, it started WW1,

No, it started long before WWI. The Empire was merrily throwing it's weight around the region in the latter half of the 1800s.

but we at least did not deny the history

People over here deny history all the time. The Empire and all the worlds ills that were and still are caused by it are almost never discussed. America's half-assed hegemony is positively benign compared to some of the things we did.

Me, I didn't vote for ANY of the bastards

So? If anything, that's worse as you just stood by and did nothing.

nobody thinks Blair's re-election was rigged.

Though there were some allegations of postal vote irregularities

The British killed thousands of americans, ON AMERICAN SOIL

And they've killed thousands of Scots, on British soil. In internal conflicts in the the 1700 and 1800s, the British military had little problem firing on their own people (and with Ireland, into the 1900s). The War of Independence was an internal conflict, and the War of 1812 would have been seen as something similar to an internal conflict. So it was British troops, killing British people.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 09:54:27 -0700 2007

manage

I wonder why I write this

I wonder that with every one of your posts.  I THINK this is an anti-war-on-terror screed.  But if so, then this is the only question I have for your "European" neighbors:

Given the MILLENIA of invasion and counter invasion you've suffered from the Middle East, isn't it high time that you had a few programs to actually assimilate new immigrants and teach them local language, local religion, and local customs rather than merely allowing yet another backdoor invasion to create warfare?

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Mon Apr 23 09:57:58 -0700 2007

manage

isn't it high time that you had a few programs to actually assimilate new immigrants and teach them local language, local religion, and local customs rather than merely allowing yet another backdoor invasion to create warfare?

Apparently, that would be considered racist.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 10:41:16 -0700 2007

manage

Apparently, that would be considered racist.

I realize that, but WHY?  It isn't racist in the least to want to preserve local culture and custom- as long as you aren't excluding people from it.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Mon Apr 23 12:31:01 -0700 2007

manage

I realize that, but WHY?

I wish I knew. I think there a multitude of reasons, ranging from a lingering fear of fascism to knee jerk left-wing biased media reactions. It's slowly changing - limiting immigration can now at least be openly discussed.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

ah.clem

Mon Apr 23 10:36:15 -0700 2007

manage

I wonder that with every one of your posts.

Hear! Hear!  Thanks for summing it up so well.

ah.clem

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Mon Apr 23 10:22:12 -0700 2007

manage

the EU into a federation in a way that nothing else could, a Federation with borders which fade into African, Arab and Asian cultures, races and religions, closer than neighbours, actual in-laws in our own family.

If Africa, the Middle East and Asia are our "in laws", we've had a funny way of treating them over the last few hundred to thousand years, from the recent British and French Empires pissing all over them to the crusades of over a thousand years ago (something that is so burned into the Islamic conscience that US forces are labelled as Crusaders). We won't even let Turkey into the EU. If Asia, the Middle East and Asia are our in laws, then the Americas and Australia are our children, and with "blood being thicker than water" you would think that that would be were European sentiments would really lie, even if there is some temporary conflict between the US and the EU.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 10:47:00 -0700 2007

manage

If Africa, the Middle East and Asia are our "in laws", we've had a funny way of treating them over the last few hundred to thousand years, from the recent British and French Empires pissing all over them to the crusades of over a thousand years ago (something that is so burned into the Islamic conscience that US forces are labelled as Crusaders).

Well, for that matter many European historians have yet to forget that the British and French Imperialism and the Crusades were presaged by the Moorish invasion of Gaul and the expansions into Europe of the Ottoman Empire as far north as Poland.

There's definately been a history of bad behavior on both sides of the fence.

We won't even let Turkey into the EU.

Given the history of the Ottoman Empire- why should they?

 If Asia, the Middle East and Asia are our in laws, then the Americas and Australia are our children, and with "blood being thicker than water" you would think that that would be were European sentiments would really lie, even if there is some temporary conflict between the US and the EU.

Given the outright class warfare going on in the United States right now- I'd say the sentiments of most Europeans about the War on Terror mirror many American sentiments as well.  Which is unfortuneate- but the current Bush is an idiot who couldn't win a war if the peace treaty was handed to him on a silver platter.

It'd be different if the Republicans actually knew how to win a modern war- but there hasn't been a Republican president with a decisive victory since Lincoln.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Dan Ost

Mon Apr 23 11:08:04 -0700 2007

manage

It'd be different if the Republicans actually knew how to win a modern war- but there hasn't been a Republican president with a decisive victory since Lincoln.

The first gulf war seemed pretty decisive to me.
Bush Sr., a republican, was in charge of it.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

computersareevil

Mon Apr 23 11:55:44 -0700 2007

manage

The first gulf war seemed pretty decisive to me.

Unfortunately, I don't think so. Everything I've read says the military campaign was a success, but the political campaign was a disaster. Bush stopped the military short of making a lasting difference, leaving the Republican Guard intact, among other things. Had Bush the stomach to fight for another 24 hours, or even 12, things might have been different.  His military was ready.   I do realize he caved because the liberal media was doing it's best to sell commercials by showing graphic images of death and destruction during dinner time.
 

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Mon Apr 23 14:04:30 -0700 2007

manage

Well, we completed our mission which was to kick Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Seems pretty decisive to me.

You can go around second guessing decisions made 16 years ago with false assumptions all you want but history doesn't support you. It was my understanding that Bush stopped the military because Iraq surrendered. As for the military being ready, I can't recall anyone in my unit expressing a desire to perform house-to-house fighting in Baghdad neighborhoods because that's why we were there, light infantry and desert warfare don't mix very well. I think everyone understood that we would end up with the mess we have today if we stayed in Iraq so we did our job and left.

So thank you for dismissing our accomplishments during the Gulf War based on the actions of Bush Jr. Iraq was a threat to no one after the war and the embargo kept them down. Then the 'liberal media' started printing the lies that came out of the White House and now look where we are today.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 14:54:10 -0700 2007

manage

Well, we completed our mission which was to kick Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Seems pretty decisive to me.

We may have completed our mission, but our mission ended up being an injustice from the Iraqi point of view.  Part of that was Saddam blaming Kuwait for a soft oil market- but a larger part WAS that the Kuwati Royal Family was slant drilling at the time.

 

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Mon Apr 23 15:49:38 -0700 2007

manage

Find me one war where both sides weren't 'justified' in their actions. I'm sure Iraq had a beef with Kuwait, they probably wouldn't have invaded otherwise but that doesn't mean they don't have to accept responsibilty for their actions. The 1st world has decided if you mess with the oil supply you get a smackdown, which pretty much describes the Gulf War - Saddam stayed in power but was declawed.

Which Iraqi point of view was liberating Kuwait an injustice to, the ruling Baath party? I think it's been shown lately Iraqis don't speak with one unified voice so the 'Iraqi point of view' is pretty much whomever has the microphone at the time.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 16:46:40 -0700 2007

manage

I'm not saying the Iraqis were justified in their invasion of Kuwait either- only that there was a dispute that Iraq had gone to the UN about, a dispute that was NEVER investigated or even attempted to be taken seriously.  Iraq even mentioned it to Rumsfeld (who was Saddam's buddy at the time, supplying him with the very arms that would be used against our troops when we went in, supplying him with the very WMDs that would later be used to put down an internal Shia revolution later) and Rumsfeld basically said "If you attack Kuwait, we won't do anything".

Just war rules originally stated no invasions- so I don't care what Kuwait was doing, I like Augustine's version of a Just War very much and Iraq would not have been able to justify their actions in Kuwait.  But then again, under Augustine's version, The United States of America has not been in a Just War since 1947, and even that one was a bit shakey (because we left our territory to take revenge on Japan and Germany).

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Mon Apr 23 17:05:50 -0700 2007

manage

You're saying Grenada wasn't just? Or operation 'Just Cause' in Panama(kidding). We're supposed to sit here safe and secure with our two ocean bufferzone and watch the Soviets sweep across Europe? Yeah, I don't buy it. We can't force freedom down anyone's throat but there's no reason we can't help a brother out - like Haiti.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Charles E Hill

Mon Apr 23 15:54:02 -0700 2007

manage

If the Iraqi view on justice is invading and annexing an entire nation because of slant drilling, then fsck their point of view.  If Saddam had stuck to what he told the U.S. he was going to do, which was send troops in to take over the field and stop the slant drilling, he wouldn't have been in that mess.  Gulf War I was handled perfectly.

The aftermath was a screw-up.  The first time Saddam said "you can't go there, that is an Imperial Palace and exempt from inspection", the inspectors should have shown back up the next day with an armored brigade and inspected anyway. 

Nothing should have been off limits.  The total inspection should have been completed and we should have been out of there within a year.  All of this would be ancient history and Iraq and Iran could go back to killing each other on a daily basis.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 16:41:02 -0700 2007

manage

If the Iraqi view on justice is invading and annexing an entire nation because of slant drilling, then fsck their point of view.

Point of last resort- the original Iraqi view was "Let's take this to World Court, that's what the UN is for".  27 times.

Nothing should have been off limits.  The total inspection should have been completed and we should have been out of there within a year.  All of this would be ancient history and Iraq and Iran could go back to killing each other on a daily basis.

Agreed.  Which is why I happen to agree with the idea of ARMED inspectors, with the following idea.  Give each inspector a GPS radio laser rangefinder.  The local country says "You can't inspect there".  They paint it with the dot and give the local country 20 minutes to evacuate the building, then in comes a Tomahawk and the building is toast.  Repeat until there are no more "off limits" areas.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

duhavid

Mon Apr 23 18:48:12 -0700 2007

manage

Note, I have little sympathy for Saddam, and how he played the game, but,
you do recognize that, awefull as it was and is, Iraq is an independant nation?
Basically, your proposed policy devolves to "might makes right", no matter
how right your side is.  Dont misconstrue that as "Iraq can do whatever it
wants, and we have to bend over and take it". 

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Charles E Hill

Mon Apr 23 19:42:20 -0700 2007

manage

Iraq was NOT an independent nation.  After Gulf War I, Iraq was a CONQUERED nation, subject to the terms of surrender.  This seems to be a point lost on most of the general public.  When they LOST THE WAR, they no longer had the right to refuse to comply with the terms of surrender.  Force is a perfectly legitimate response in that case.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

duhavid

Mon Apr 23 20:25:00 -0700 2007

manage

After the latest round ( 2003 and on ), Iraq is a conquered nation.

After Gulf War 1 ( 199x ), they were a nation driven out of Kuwait, with no fly
zones established by force, economic sanctions ( hardly the sign
of a conquered nation ), but, as far as I can tell, still an independant
nation, under duress.  Or did you mean Gulf war II, in which case,
the inspectors comment above makes no sense.

And I think you have made my point, when talking about how force is
legitimate after you have used force to subdue your opponent, and
they dont like it much.

Note, again, I dont /didnt think Saddam was anywhere near "right" on
all this, my point was that the post I was replying to was assuming
that we could impose our expectations on another nation.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

computersareevil

Mon Apr 23 14:58:33 -0700 2007

manage

How do the words "military success" dismiss your accomplishments?

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Mon Apr 23 16:08:01 -0700 2007

manage

It just pisses me off that now it was a failure because we didn't take over the whole country and take out Saddam even though nobody wanted that back then. I should've died over there so baby Bush couldn't have the chance to go back with a half baked plan? Damn, I wish I could come up with a good car analogy...

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 16:47:58 -0700 2007

manage

Actually if you follow that type of revisionist history- then maybe we shouldn't have supported the overthrow of King Fisal to begin with, way back before you were born?

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Mon Apr 23 17:20:43 -0700 2007

manage

Any government policy which would have had me getting the G.I. Bill with a minimum of suffering is just fine in my book. This revisionist history you speak of, so you're saying they were calling for the invasion of Baghdad? Don't get a whole lot of news from a foxhole in the middle of the Iraqi desert so, yeah, I'm probably wrong about that but I think history supports my statment.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Charles E Hill

Mon Apr 23 16:58:45 -0700 2007

manage

We didn't take Saddam out back then because we WANTED him there.  He could keep the Iranians tied up in knots for DECADES and the entire region would have been just left to a low simmer for a generation.

However, the current U.S. President can't see beyond the tip of his nose and just doesn't get it.  His father knew what he was doing.

Do you think it was a mistake that we told the Kurds in the North and the group in the South that we'd welcome a rebellion against Saddam, then stood by while he used his helicopters to massacre both groups?  Do you think it was an oversight that we restricted his use of aircraft, but allowed helicopter gunships to operate freely?

Iran has always been the focus, since before recorded history when they were called Persia.  Everybody else in the area is just a bit player -- Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Israel -- all of 'em.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Alan

Tue Apr 24 06:25:03 -0700 2007

manage

Had Bush the stomach to fight for another 24 hours, or even 12, things might have been different. His military was ready. I do realize he caved because the liberal media was doing it's best....

Liberal media? Sure.

Bush Sr was smart enough to know that if he destroyed Iraq's army, it would be a power vacuum to be filled by Iran and Syria. He would have had to do what Bush Jr did, occupy for an indefinite period, to prevent that.

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, by George Bush Sr.
"Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
GH Bush, 1998.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 11:57:36 -0700 2007

manage

The first gulf war seemed pretty decisive to me.

Didn't finish the job, though, did he?  Or rather, he was wise enough to know that America doesn't have the stomach for long, genocidal wars.  Which is what invading Iraq would have turned into no matter who did it, unless you put in more troops than Iraqis.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

rubycodez

Mon Apr 23 12:32:59 -0700 2007

manage

 never been true you need as many troops as citizens to win a war or for that matter rule a conquered country.  But we could have done similar thing in gulf war we did in Iraq now, without the three huge mistakes, the proper way being:  leave Iraq's army intact, seal the borders, and then let them occupy their time and stay busy rebuilding themselves.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 12:52:54 -0700 2007

manage

never been true you need as many troops as citizens to win a war or for that matter rule a conquered country

It's actually been true in most countries in the Middle East since the time of Ghengis Kahn, or before.  And if you lose, don't expect your ambassadors to that country to have particularily long lifespans either.   Insurgency and tribal afflilation is a way of life after so many centuries- not that warfare was particularily foreign to those parts before then, but it was more offensive than defensive.

 But we could have done similar thing in gulf war we did in Iraq now, without the three huge mistakes, the proper way being:  leave Iraq's army intact, seal the borders, and then let them occupy their time and stay busy rebuilding themselves.

That ignores the 4th big mistake though- that most of the people in the army have tribal problems with other people WITHIN the country.  But sealing the borders would have been a darn good idea- I figure it would have taken 3 million troops to do it.

 

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

rubycodez

Mon Apr 23 13:14:21 -0700 2007

manage

Israel exists, they came, conquered and rule their land, just mainly having some problems with some recent acquisitions.  Then there's ottoman & byzantine empires, lasted for quite awhile.

but I'm saying whether or not army has tribal problems would in that case not be *our* problem, and a problem they could solve quickly with superior firepower  (and remember I'm talking in the context of doing things during first gulf war, when we would have been 100% justified in whatever we did to Iraq).

Three million to seal borders in the days of horseback and soldiers with spears, we can do some better now, especially if that's ALL we were doing.  Land mines, aircraft, barriers, and many more are all nifty border sealing tools

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 13:52:00 -0700 2007

manage

Israel exists, they came, conquered and rule their land, just mainly having some problems with some recent acquisitions. 

And they will continue to "have problems with recent acquisitions" until such a time that they release those acquisitions.  They're not going to be allowed to keep them in the long run.

Then there's ottoman & byzantine empires, lasted for quite awhile.

Both were seen by the local people as local rule.  Quite proudly, in fact.

but I'm saying whether or not army has tribal problems would in that case not be *our* problem, and a problem they could solve quickly with superior firepower  (and remember I'm talking in the context of doing things during first gulf war, when we would have been 100% justified in whatever we did to Iraq).

I actually didn't see even the FIRST Gulf War as being justifiable- we basically came in on the side of slant-drilling pirates after 27 complaints to the World Court and an invasion to stop the slant drilling.  We did so because, basically, the Kuwaiti royal family were our friends.  It was close to standard just war doctrine, but not quite because the original injustice that caused the problem was never really rectified (not that it would have been easy to rectify as the retreating Iraqi army set all the wells on fire as they left, but still).

Three million to seal borders in the days of horseback and soldiers with spears, we can do some better now, especially if that's ALL we were doing.  Land mines, aircraft, barriers, and many more are all nifty border sealing tools

Yes they are, but there's darned good reason that the borders of Iraq are where they are- and rough territory reduces the force multiplier effect of those tools.  Basically what you need is 4 snipers per mile plus support services, or the equivalent, to truly secure a border.  You can get by with a bit less by using patrols- but a patroled border, by definition, is not a secure border.    If we had an adaptive land mine that could climb cliffs, then we could use extra tech....

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

rubycodez

Mon Apr 23 14:10:13 -0700 2007

manage

the slant drilling claims probably weren't true, how many oil wells were within a mile of Iraq?  You couldn't in 1990 slant drill miles away.  Saddam's main claim was something else,  back to Ottoman empire days, a load of hooey.  That local people rule business also was used by the Romans, sometimes works great.  Too bad we didn't give it a whirl in Iraq.

Yeah, Israel should give back those "recent acquisitions", but there's also some unjust land grabbing far back in their history to early 20th century.  Time to use the billions we give them every year to make them at least behave properly.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

President4242

Mon Apr 23 14:57:30 -0700 2007

manage

the slant drilling claims probably weren't true, how many oil wells were within a mile of Iraq?  You couldn't in 1990 slant drill miles away.  Saddam's main claim was something else,  back to Ottoman empire days, a load of hooey.  That local people rule business also was used by the Romans, sometimes works great.  Too bad we didn't give it a whirl in Iraq.
If we had- we'd be MUCH better off- split Iraq into three or four separate countries.  I still think though we would have avoided the first gulf war had the World Court even entertained ONE of the slant drilling claims- but money rules there, and Kuwait had a lot more money.

Yeah, Israel should give back those "recent acquisitions", but there's also some unjust land grabbing far back in their history to early 20th century.  Time to use the billions we give them every year to make them at least behave properly.

If they did, they'd soon be gone- force multipliers from American weapons are the only thing even coming close to keeping Israel a nation right now.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Mon Apr 23 12:15:33 -0700 2007

manage

There's definately been a history of bad behavior on both sides of the fence.

Which is why Guy Fawke's assertion that Eurasia and Africa would coalesce into some peaceful federation united by hatred of the US is patently absurd. Thousands of years of antipathy isn't going to go away over some recent, temporary and somewhat minor spat between Europe's left wing and the current American administration.

Given the history of the Ottoman Empire- why should they?

Cheap labour?

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

monopole

Mon Apr 23 11:09:25 -0700 2007

manage

Check the polls, the majority of of us Americans want out of Iraq, and want nothing to do with an invasion of Iran.
Bush's poll numbers are in the cellar, and have been for months.  If it weren't for the MSM's constant boosterism there would be impeachment hearings going on.  In fact, several of our state legislatures are preparing requests for impeachment.
As for a draft, forget about it, if they actually passed a draft at this point even the 25% bottom would fall out of Bush's support.
The problem is that this Country has been hijacked for the past 7 years, and we are finally pulling out the stops and driving out the pretender, But it's going to take some time yet.

My scary, chilling questions...

dfm

Mon Apr 23 15:58:47 -0700 2007

manage

What is the probability of biological or nuclear terrorism in your country or surrounding nations? On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate the threat?

What will be the social and economic outcome of the detonation of a crude nuclear weapon in one of your major citys or in any of the worlds major shipping ports?

It is estimated that when terrorists have nuclear weapons they will detonate two of them at once for maximum effect and use a undetonated third weapon for blackmail. What do you think the blackmail demands will be?

What nations or nation states do you think have secret nuclear programs or are developing nuclear weapons against international law?

What is the best way to prevent nuclear terrorism right now and in the future?

Are you prepared for disaster at home and at work for this threat?

What nations are currently doing the most to prevent nuclear terrorism right now and by what methods?

 

My scary, chilling questions...

President4242

Mon Apr 23 16:58:31 -0700 2007

manage

What is the probability of biological or nuclear terrorism in your country or surrounding nations? On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate the threat?

Internally or externally?  I think internally, from either Americans being oppressed by the current class warfare or illegal immigrants sneaking across the border (they're not all Mexicans you know, some 45% of the people sneaking across our southern border are OTMs) , 6.   Externally, from another 9-11 style event, 3.

What will be the social and economic outcome of the detonation of a crude nuclear weapon in one of your major citys or in any of the worlds major shipping ports?

Not as much as we might think- our economy is rather decentralized now.  But the political fallout would be huge- Americans are into revenge.  And then atonement.  Because we're schizophrenic that way.

It is estimated that when terrorists have nuclear weapons they will detonate two of them at once for maximum effect and use a undetonated third weapon for blackmail. What do you think the blackmail demands will be?

Depens on the group of terrorists you mean.  Islamics will want conversion.  Domestics could range from money to land to wierd apocalypse prophecies.

What nations or nation states do you think have secret nuclear programs or are developing nuclear weapons against international law?

I think that we are now in a day and age where just about any multi-millionaire with a group of mad scientists could break "dirty nuclear weapon" status.  Though if they were going for it, a bat bomb might be better bang for the buck as far as terror goes- nuclear kills quick, the bat bomb would destroy property but not individuals.

What is the best way to prevent nuclear terrorism right now and in the future?

Complete radiological screening of all people and goods crossing borders, without regard to economic cost.

Are you prepared for disaster at home and at work for this threat?

To quote Sting in his famous anti-nuclear war song "I hope the Russians Love their Children Too"- that's a lie we don't believe anymore.  It's impossible to guard against certain levels of threat- and with a nuke, you're dead.  NOTHING can help you once you get radiation sickness.

What nations are currently doing the most to prevent nuclear terrorism right now and by what methods?

Near as I can tell, there isn't anybody doing a damned thing REAL about it.  Just a bunch of posturing and fakery to keep the people from panicing, nothing more.

Near as I can tell, there isn't anybody doing a damned thing REAL about it.

dfm

Mon Apr 23 19:01:41 -0700 2007

manage

Got it, and governments will keep a lid on it as long as they can.

My scary, chilling questions...

GuyFawkes

Mon Apr 23 18:11:13 -0700 2007

manage

What is the probability of biological or nuclear terrorism in your country or surrounding nations? On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate the threat?

Biological or nuclear terrorism on the scale of releasing poison in a subway japan style or dispersal of radioactive material is possible, but these would be on the scale of the IRA "spectaculars", which we coped with so well that for most of the UK life literally went on as normal.

Nuclear fission or fusion as a terrorist weapon? No, theoretically possible but incredibly unlikely.

Ebola as terrorist weapon? Bird flu would kill more, female hormones in the food chain arguably already do more.

There are many far better targets, easier to hit, natural gas pipelines spreading from russia to western europe, our national grid system, a dozen 10 kilo charges of C4 could knock it out totally, 40 tons of aluminium sulphate in the drinking water reservoirs.

What will be the social and economic outcome of the detonation of a crude nuclear weapon in one of your major citys or in any of the worlds major shipping ports?

Hiroshima, Dresden, Great Fire of London, cities being effectively wiped off the map for a generation has happened before. If you life more than 100 miles away it can, counter-intuitively, prove to be of economic benefit. Obviously it will be a bad time to be importing plasma tellys, but a good time to be a railway engineer from 100 miles away.

An asteroid impact would do the same thing, so the cause being deliberate and malicious doesn't affect the outcome.

It is estimated that when terrorists have nuclear weapons they will detonate two of them at once for maximum effect and use a undetonated third weapon for blackmail. What do you think the blackmail demands will be?

This has holes on so many levels it ain't true....

"it is estimated.." by whom?
nuclear weapons are not RPGs, terrorists are not nation states with assets, to a terrorist a nuclear weapon is less than useless while it remains un-detonated, so if you have one, two, or three you will use them ALL... nukes go off like cream cakes remember.

blackmail demands, none, a nuke is a major toy, so any demands have to be major, like "USA, close ALL your foreign bases and pull ALL the nimitz class back to home waters", which are demands that would never be met, no good asking for money or a dictatorship, so again, if you have a nuke you detonate it, cos it is no use for blackmail.

(the flipside is also true, if you are a terrorist you have no assets, no country, no cities, no peoples, so nothing the other side can nuke, or threaten to...)

since there have been no mushroom clouds, I cite this as proof that there are no loose nukes floating about, and if there are none now and fissile material is inventoried worldwide, there will be  none.

What nations or nation states do you think have secret nuclear programs or are developing nuclear weapons against international law?

I'll take that as  "...secret nuclear WEAPONS programme..."

Israel is.
North Korea would LOVE one, as would Mugabe and a few others.

Realistically they might all also like ICBM capability, but that is another tough nut to crack.

Iran, who knows, maybe they do only want nuclear power generation, and maybe a nuclear deterrent against israel?

What is the best way to prevent nuclear terrorism right now and in the future?

You can't prevent terrorism, so you can only try to keep terrorists from getting seriously organised, which they would have to do to get nukes, unless some nutters are given nukes by people who have them, but are not terrorists per se.

You minimise terrorism by reducing the payoff, terrorISM and not TERRORism, we did it with the IRA by calling them criminals and getting on with life.

Are you prepared for disaster at home and at work for this threat?

You either catch a bullet, or you don't, preparedness or otherwise doesn't change that, may skew the outcome a little after the fact....

With people like Tony Blair in power, "preparedness" is best expressed by not living in london and not joining the army.

What nations are currently doing the most to prevent nuclear terrorism right now and by what methods?

The nations with no fissile nuclear material production are doing the most.... QED

Now, a question for you.
Why bugger around with something as complex, difficult and expensive to set up as a nuke, when I can sail into new york harbour with a quarter of a million tons of hydrocarbons and set of a fuel air explosion with C4 and timers dropped into the tanks thousands of miles away by one man?

Wiping out manhattan with the very same oil that the yankee imperialists worship so much is apt.....

When 9/11 happened and everyone started bollocks about an attack on "america", bullshit, WTC was a financial centre and everyone knew it, if you wanted to hit the american psyche in the balls both jets flew right past lady liberty, ___THE___ symbol of america.

Why bugger around....

dfm

Mon Apr 23 18:53:34 -0700 2007

manage

Yes, I see your point, or even worse, a combination of a nuke hydrocarbon fuel air super bomb enough to melt Lady Liberty down to a copper slag heap!

I hope not.

Yes, they  hit the American psyche, and the effects are upon us.
I am concerned about our response if we are hit again.
Again, I hope not.

My scary, chilling questions...

Richard Young

Mon Apr 23 20:42:00 -0700 2007

manage

Why bugger around with something as complex, difficult and expensive to set up as a nuke, when I can sail into new york harbour with a quarter of a million tons of hydrocarbons and set of a fuel air explosion with C4 and timers dropped into the tanks thousands of miles away by one man?

Either that or follow China's lead and start blowing up Satellites.  You could neuter the countries communications network, its financial capabilities and its ability to re-group.

I understand that their are subterranean comms cables etc, but an awfully large percentage is done via Satellite.  And considering the lack of Disaster recovery planning in most companies, I bet very few groups would be prepared

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Charles E Hill

Mon Apr 23 16:51:24 -0700 2007

manage

For a start, you can read this piece about anti-Americanism in Europe.  There is bias, but there is also a lot of truth to it.

As for Europeans turning on the US in a war, let me put it this way.  You'd have more chance of finding a set of balls big enough for that at a Eunuch colony than in Western Europe today.

Europeans love to feel the world's pain, pound their chests in agony for the injustices and point their fingers -- mostly at the U.S., at Capitalism and even sometimes at themselves.  But actually do something about it?  HA!

How's Darfur coming?  Has the U.N. and E.U. talked any more about it lately?  Somalia?  Zimbabwe?  Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi in 1994.  Actually, most of Africa and good chunks of Asia and S. America throughout history.  You folks moved so swiftly on the ethnic cleansing in Serbia and the Balkans only a few thousand got massacred!  Bravo!

In short, who gives a damn what Europeans think?  They aren't actually going to do anything about it but talk, anyway.

Good luck with that Israel vs the Arab world.  They've been there, done that, not once, not twice but three times.  Guess who lost each time?

Russia isn't going to get involved, no matter what the U.S. does.  Putin will just use it as a convenient excuse to ban other parties and form a dictatorial state.

China?  Not hardly.  It gives them a precedent for dealing with their Islamic separatists in their western provinces.  They'll happily sell arms to all sides, and negotiate middle-man free oil contracts with whoever is left standing.  Take a look at all their recent activity in the Sudan, if you want an example.

With China, Russia and Europe out of it, who is left for a World War?  Venezuela and Cuba?

The U.S. has absolutely no business bombing or invading Iran.  If they want nuclear power, fine.

But, the first time they test detonate a weapon, we should wipe out every facility they have.  No waiting for the U.N.  No resolutions.  No asking the world for permission.  Just destroy everything that reads above background level radiation within their borders.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Mon Apr 23 19:27:52 -0700 2007

manage

But, the first time they test detonate a weapon, we should wipe out every facility they have.

I think that a bunch of backwoods hicks from Pakistan would have a hard time getting a nuke out of the region but a state like Iran could probably manage it. Get a nuke to Europe, test nuke in Iran, get bombed by US and detonate nuke(s) outside Iran. It's interesting the treaty we're busting their balls with says they can have civilian reactors but when they try to build them we say they can't have them because they can use them to build bombs.

Maybe we should just give the Jews a new homeland, Texas would be nice, and just be done with it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about those pesky war bent Europeans coming over here, taxing us, living in our homes, and apparently eating all the cheese. Yup, we could just trade with the Red Chinese and the Russians and be done with the lot of them. Palistinians would probably love us until we refused to help keep the Syrians out and Spain was Moorish for a long time so could they please have that back too? No, well here's a few thousand dead civilians to help you see their point of view.

The world would be a wonderful place without the US, its puppet the UN, the dog wagging Jews and the ass-licking British government. Well except for the fact y'all would be speaking Russian if it wasn't for us you ungrateful fools.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Tue Apr 24 04:12:30 -0700 2007

manage

Well except for the fact y'all would be speaking Russian if it wasn't for us you ungrateful fools.

Except that without the Americans, the Russians would now be speaking German, as would the French. But then, if it wasn't for the French, the Americans would now be speaking English.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Tue Apr 24 12:28:46 -0700 2007

manage

Hey, you weren't supposed to mention German in the context of Europeans.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Carl

Tue Apr 24 04:26:24 -0700 2007

manage

Russian is quite a beautiful language, actually.
I live in a muslim enclave and like it. I am a technocrat (aka crypto-communist). I almost cheered on 11-9. I strongly dislike (christians don't hate) just about everything the US of A stands for. I even have had a natural dislike for any food originally from your continent (potato, tomato, corn, etc) since birth. Do I now fit the profile of a European US-hater?

You know what the worst thing is? I'm going there for work in a few days. They will not let me in if they knew I wrote this. How's that for liberty? Your country behaves like a 13-year old insecure little kid.

Disclaimer a la Chavez: It's not the people I dislike, it's the Country. It's the paranoia, the xenophobia, the fear, and the actions that are made out of fear and a false sense of injustice. If you were a small country like North Korea I would have cared as much as I care about them. The size of the USA makes it the primary country to vent your dislikes upon.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Tue Apr 24 07:04:21 -0700 2007

manage

You know what the worst thing is? I'm going there for work in a few days

So you're a hypocrite?

They will not let me in if they knew I wrote this. How's that for liberty?

Why should you be allowed in? If you dislike the place so much you shouldn't even be going there in the first place.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Carl

Tue Apr 24 07:22:14 -0700 2007

manage

The fact that I dislike someone does not mean that I wouldn't save his ass if his life was in danger (even though I wouldn't mourn him). I can however express my opinions on his behaviour. That I'm not with the US does not mean that I'm against the US, and all it's inhabitants... Nuance or grey areas are no American concepts, apparently.

A bedtime story on hypocrisy: In the war with Spain, the Netherlands collected all the cannonballs they fired at us, sold them back to them (some people even put their name on them to see if the same one would come back), and with the money we hired eastern-european mercenaries to kick the Spanish out. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer :)

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

maethorechannen

Tue Apr 24 07:50:44 -0700 2007

manage

That I'm not with the US does not mean that I'm against the US, and all it's inhabitants

But you said " I strongly dislike (christians don't hate) just about everything the US of A stands for" - how is that statement reconciled with not being against the US? It's like you're saying "I'm against the US, but I'm not against the US" - that's not some subtle nuance in meaning, that's just logical absurdity.

If you strongly dislike a country, why would you go there for work? And if you strongly dislike a country, why should that country let you in?

Nuance or grey areas are no American concepts, apparently.

But little jibes against Americans are apparently European concepts.

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Carl

Tue Apr 24 08:28:45 -0700 2007

manage

Dislike - Against. Two very different words with a very different meaning. Maybe too subtle for a black-and-white person though. Did I mention paranoid 13-year old? Make that a paranoid 13-year old borderliner. Maybe with a splash of psychotic added.

As to why I go there? If you really want to know: Because the company I work for owns an American company and I have to go fix the crap they created.

They should let me in because my country is on a friendly basis with the USA, and one of the agreements is to let eachothers people in and out. If my personal opinion on the current leadership and culture of the US of A is a factor in that, I'd hardly call that a "free" country, and they'd better give France their statue back.

Jibes? Well, it's a hard-to-miss easy target, the fish always bite, and we are better than Americans in every important aspect imaginable. How could we not? :D

Big Trouble in Little Achaemenia

Uncle Entity

Tue Apr 24 12:39:40 -0700 2007

manage

Maybe, just maybe what I wrote was a parody of Guy's article and his later comment. But thanks for sharing and have a hateful day.