|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Bubba 
Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,10:06 am |
|
   |
It sounds good, I just hope our troops can find someone over there whose unconditional surrender would be meaningful. At this stage I don't think an unconditional surrender from both Sadam and Bin Lauden would mean a tinkers dam. Our war in Iraq hasn't done much in extinguishing terrorism, in fact we may have escalated it.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,10:38 am |
|
 |
But what are the options to war on terrorism? Fifty years of placating Kings, Dictators, Emirs, or platitudes to the common people haven't helped--THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS HAVE SWORN AN "INTEFADAH", "JIHAD", OR RELIGIOUS WAR--THESE PEOPLE HATE US, AND HAVE SWORN TO KILL US!
The only thing that seems to bring these people around is loss of "face" and superior strength. "Hey, Muhammed, you lay YOUR JIHAD on the table, and we'll lay OUR JIHAD on the table, and we'll see who had the BIGGEST JIHAD! There is no such thing as "winning the war through winning hearts and minds"--CLUB THEM ON THE HEAD, THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS WILL FOLLOW. Nobody respects a doormat, and it is time we quit being one.
Despite what the "hand wringers" and talking heads on CNN proclaim (they can't WAIT to use the term "quagmire" after only a couple of months--this, from the folks that GAVE us "quagmire" in Vietnam!) even by most international reports, most Iraqis support us. What IS disappointing is the lack of a clear goal for the occupying force--I try to follow this item closely, and I haven't heard one.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,10:50 am |
|
|
Wow, love the last two posts by Bubba and Jim. Have one question for Jim though. Who made us the cop on the beat? A lot of the rest of the world resent us because we feel that way. We arent qualified to be the world police, we have the money and the power, but we arent fair in how we use it. We sit by and watch as Isreal goes after hamas leaders with missles and tanks in civilian, densly populated areas. If you are going to be the self appointed world police, you better be willing to the fair thing, regardless of who it is, enemy or friend. My point is, we have lost all credibility in the world as the world police because of our willingness to look the otherway in the Palastine, Isreal conflict. It does have to do with politics and the fact that our government wont critisize Isreal for doing something that our government thinks it might do in the same situation. Its all emotions, and getting the bad guys, but would you really want your cop on the beat to have this much vengence on his mind. I agree, our military is probably capable of doing such a job, but not through political leadership. Just the fact that it comes from Washington taints the whole process, and political considerations will always decide whos side we take, regardless of who is right or wrong.
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
minnow
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,11:26 am |
|
|
"The only thing that seems to bring these people around is loss of "face" and superior strength"....Then why did we go after sombody else?
Bush is finished. End of story and I'm republican. Not saying the Dems will win...but Bush is a one termer like daddy Bush.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,12:03 pm |
|
|
Minnow--I wasn't talking about anyone in the Middle East in particular--just that they fear humiliation more than death, and that they respect strength.
I've got to agree with you on Bush--thought he had some promise after 9/11, but has proven to be a big-spending wimp that doesn't know how to use power--he can't even stop Democratic filibustering to get judges confirmed! By any measure--actual dollars, "normed" dollars, percentage of national product, he has INCREASED federal spending--and not just on the military, but on social programs--and what has it brought him? Certainly not the love of the liberals--like Richard Nixon, he has pushed their agenda in hopes of currying favor--yet, they loathe him--much like many in the Mideast loathe us--just because of who we are!
For Hoosier--"who appointed us cop on the beat?" Good question. Isolationism vs. Involvement is not a new argument--it's been going on since George Washington warned of "Foreign Entanglements". My guess is that WE appointed OURSELVES as cop--if you saw two guys fighting, with the threat of the fight spilling over into your yard, you would probably stop it if you could. Should you? Both combatants will probably hate you! 
It seems you can't win in the U.S. polls any more when it comes to foreign policy. If Bush gets involved overseas, the Dems paint him as a "warmonger"--if he stays at home, he "doesn't care" about problems in the rest of the world. Perhaps that is why they like the idea of a U.N. led approach--they can PRETEND that it is someone else doing the fighting--some major power like Chad, Zimbabwe, Togo, Paraguay, or Tonga--instead of U.S. troops and dollars. Kind of like patting yourself on the back and telling yourself what a good guy you are! (And about as effective!)
Palestine/Israel? A perfect example of U.N. stupidity. There hadn't been an Israel or Palestine for several hundred years--the entire area was a British Mandate called Trans-Jordan. In 1947, one of the first actions of the new U.N. was to give a "national homeland" to people of the Jewish faith--right in the middle of Moslems--kind of like mandating a NAACP chapter in 1920s Selma, Alabama, or a KKK chapter in Harlem. Like most proponents of Big Government, they had the arrogant belief that they could FORCE everybody to get along by government edict--and THIS is the "SUCCESS STORY" that multiculturalists would like to use for a model?
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 11 2003,12:04 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Bubba
Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,3:04 pm |
|
|
Jim, a few response back you were talking about the pour GI’s in Vietnam who could not pursue the enemy into Cambodia. Well that may have been true at the beginning of the war. Secretary McNamara was concerned about drawing the Chinese and Russians into the war and President Johnson backed him up.
Your statement stayed with me because I wanted to find a way to tell you something other than the official US line on the topic. I started out writing it several times but deleted it due to conflicts I felt. Well two days ago I was doing research on another topic, and in the data I had gathered the following information on Cambodia pot out. Being that this was in the public domain, I do not feel any conflict in sharing it.
Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know 1999 by Rou Gutmann, David Fieff, others
“For the last three decades Cambodia has been consumed by war. In March 1970, a western created junta led by General Lon Nol deposed Prince Norodom Sihanouk. Sihanouk, a neutralist, ahd kept Cambodia out of the Vietnam War by allowing the Americans to bomb Viet Cong sanctuaries inside Cambodia while allowing the Vietnamese to use the city of Kompong Som to ship in supplies. The Lon Nol group declared war on Hanoi and President Nixon ordered American troops into Cambodia. However the president didn't inform Lon Nol of the invasion until after it had begun and been announced on American television.”
My question to you is, do you think we may have been in there? Maybe even before Nixon publicly ordered troops in?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Bubba
Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,4:11 pm |
|
|
"THESE PEOPLE HATE US, AND HAVE SWORN TO KILL US!"
This statement may be a little simplistic. We have been told what their grievances with us are.
a) They want the infidels out of their holy places, i.e. US out of Saudi Arabia.
b) They want the US to stop sponsoring the genocide of the Palestinian people. and
c) Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, I believe we will have a few more issues to deal with.
We have been told by those in the know within the Middle East that the place to start is with B. Now you say what are they talking about? They are talking about our economic support of Israel and the fact that our attempts at establishing peace have not been those of an honest broker.
Your guess is as good as mine as to the terror ending if we would or could give them what they want. I guess it will come down to us telling our government that they should try our not. So what do you think?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 11 2003,10:49 pm |
|
|
Bubba--first post--yep, we were there, just not "officially". I have friends that flew for Air America--yes, the same one as the movie--a civilian front for the CIA. Except for the stupid dialogue, the movie is fairly realistic. Though it was supposed to be a "Cargo" airline, Air America operated some definitely non-cargo airplanes--like Cessna Bird Dog Forward Air Controllers--though these would normally spot and mark the enemy for air strikes, air strikes were verboten in Cambodia--but they could call in artillery from across the border. Air America also operated North American T-28s and Skyraiders--piston-powered aircraft armed with machine guns and bomb racks--painted black--flown by Air America pilots that had been "sanitized" by having them "resign" from the U.S. forces--though they kept their military pay and date of rank.
Post #2--No, I don't believe EVERY Moslem hates us--but they DO take orders pretty well from their clerics. Unlike the U.S., there seem to be few people "partly practicing" their religion--the Moslem equivalent of "Easter and Christmas Christians", for example. They tend to view the pronouncement of their religious leaders as a command--"Salman Rushdie must die!", for example, or "I want you to strap these explosives to your body and kill the infidels!".
"They want the infidels out of their holy places, like Saudi Arabia"--the whole COUNTRY IS HOLY? Non Moslems not welcome ANYWHERE? If that is the case, then yes, I'd go with the statement--THEY HATE US!
"Stop practicing genocide against the Palastinian people?" First of all, there ARE no Palestinian people--any more than "Ebonics" is a true language. There wasn't a Palestine for hundreds of years--the area at different times has belonged to many different countries, and for the hundred years or so before, had been ruled by the British as Trans-Jordan. To establish a claim for a homeland for EITHER the Palestinians or the Israelis would be like my going to Denmark, to stake a demand for land, because my great-grandfather left 100 years ago. The U.N. erred in establishing Israel in 1947, and the only way to rectify that is to establish Palestine today--OR ABOLISH BOTH! Frankly, I'd rather give the Israelis Nevada--the U.S. government owns 87% of it any way--the Israelis seem to thrive in the desert, and it would be the ultimate "land for peace"!
In the meantime, I wouldn't go so far as to call Israeli terrorist hunting (and there ARE a lot of terrorists--one bomb goes off, and 5 groups claim responsibility! ) GENOCIDE. I think they have shown remarkable restraint--the country that whipped the entire Arab world SEVERAL times could easily do it today--but have resigned themselves to limited action.
Most of the people that advocate "just give them the Golan Heights or the West Bank" haven't studied geography very well. Israel is such a small country that 90% of the population, over 70% of the land mass, every major city, port, and airport would be reachable by common artillery fire from the Golan Heights or West Bank. One of the concerns about Iranian nuclear power--they have stated that "one atomic bomb will destroy ALL of Israel". Further, WHY should Israel give up the territory--that is ALL it kept after defeating the Arab world--they even gave up the occupied cities in other countries.
"Attempts at establishing peace have not been those of an honest broker"? SEVERAL times, both the U.S. and Israel have said that peace talks would start once the Arabs had shown they could control their people by going 1 MONTH without an attack--they couldn't do it. They modified their offer to make it 2 WEEKS without an attack--they couldn't do that, either. What good is a cease-fire--THAT ISN'T? One of the biggest obstacles to Mideast peace is that Arafat--or his successors--has not only been UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS PEOPLE, BUT AS THE CAPTURED SHIP SHOWS--RENEGED ON HIS PLEDGE OF PEACE. You just don't do business with a liar and a cheat, and the World--not just the U.S., decided that Arafat was irrelevant at that point. He is STILL trying to annoint a successor.
Mideast peace? Won't happen, except under one of 3 scenarios.
Overwhelming dominance of power by Arabs, Israel, or the U.S.
Israel ceases to exist in the area.
An Arab "strongman" controls his people, negotiates with Israel, each recognizes the others right to exist, and a separate Arab state is established.
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 11 2003,10:51 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 12 2003,12:20 am |
|
|
Would you sit down at the negotiating table with an occupying army? I mean, its bout like if a guy broke into your house, armed, you confront him with a gun and tell him to get the hell out. But he looks at you and says, I aint leaving till you drop your gun. Come on, Isreal is saying we will pull out of your territory, when you stop trying to force us to leave. I only hope that if America was not the power it is today, that if we were occupied by say Canada, who was supported by an overseas superpower, that we would have people walking into Toronto and taking as many as the bastards with em as possible. Make it as painful on the people as you can so their government would end the occupation. For me, there would be no talks, none, until every enemy troop was gone from our land.
Now, Isreal says it is going to go in and get Arafat and expell him. What a disaster waiting to happen. Two governments hate each other, but who dies, not the people in government, just the people.
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 12 2003,1:28 am |
|
|
| Quote |
"First of all, there ARE no Palestinian people--any more than "Ebonics" is a true language. There wasn't a Palestine for hundreds of years--the area at different times has belonged to many different countries, and for the hundred years or so before, had been ruled by the British as Trans-Jordan.
|
I don't know about ebonics but there certainly are Palestinian people.
The name Palestine originates from the Philistine inhabitance of the land of Judea. When the Romans conquered the region in the year 200 they called it Palestinia to minimize Jewish attachment to the land.
Transjordan was created by Great Britain in 1918 when they split Palestine along the Jordan river to the gulf of Aqaba and called the eastern half Transjordan. Prior to that the area had been under Ottoman-Turk rule for 400 years. In 1948 Transjordan gained independance from Britain and changed the name of the country to Jordan. So actually the British ruled Transjordan(the area east of Palestine) for 30 years.
| Quote |
GENOCIDE. I think they have shown remarkable restraint--the country that whipped the entire Arab world SEVERAL times could easily do it today--but have resigned themselves to limited action
|
U.S. Aid to Israel from 1949 to 1997 was $85 Billion dollars. And the last I heard we were giving them $2 billion a year for defense. It's rather obvious why they whipped the entire Arab world isn't it?
| Quote |
Most of the people that advocate "just give them the Golan Heights or the West Bank" haven't studied geography very well. Israel is such a small country that 90% of the population, over 70% of the land mass, every major city, port, and airport would be reachable by common artillery fire from the Golan Heights or West Bank.
|
How about they leave the West Bank and the Gaza strip like they agreed to in Oslo Agreements in 1993. Then they probably wouldn't have to worry so much about anyone firing artillery at them.
| Quote |
SEVERAL times, both the U.S. and Israel have said that peace talks would start once the Arabs had shown they could control their people by going 1 MONTH without an attack--they couldn't do it. They modified their offer to make it 2 WEEKS without an attack--they couldn't do that, either.
|
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Peace talks have been going on there for as long as I can remember. They start up , they break down , they start up again, they break down again....
| Quote |
Mideast peace? Won't happen, except under one of 3 scenarios.
|
The Multinational Forces and Observers have been doing a pretty good job of keeping the peace in the Sinai for 20 years now without an overwhelming show of force. I don't see why that wouldn't work for Israel and Palestine. We could quit giving Israel $2 billion a year in military aid then and I doubt an M.F.O. type force would ever cost us 2 billion dollars a year.
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
