OT: Can We Surrender?

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Rocketman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<JPsvb.203221$275.755595@attbi_s53>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In recent weeks, I have read a number of OT politically charged threads surrounding the US's
war on terror, and the war in Iraq. Many I agree with. Some I laugh at. Some I cry at. All of
these threads collectively motivated me to postulate the following: I will start by assuming
that the enemy has some cease fire/ surrender conditions. First, what are they? Second,
suppose the US were to agree to those terms? I know, ridiculous.

Please define "the enemy" in this context, and characterize US

strategies to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

defeat them, either through force or other means. Please define the specific reasons for current
US occupation of Iraq, and the conditions

under

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which the occupation will cease. Give estimates for US and Iraqi casualties.

If you are confused about who the enemy is you are hopeless.

I'm not the one advocating an endless war without a clear military objective.

Quoted message said:

We can not educate you here on ARBR. You will have to do that on your own.

I'm not the one making hollow assertions and engaging in libelous ad hominem.

Quoted message said:

But why are you asking such stupid questions?

Hundreds of thousands of people are asking the same questions, loudly and publicly, all over
the world.

Quoted message said:

Apparently you do not have a clue about anything.

Apparently you are addressing your reflection in a mirror.

Quoted message said:

You have been brainwashed silly by liberal propaganda.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I read news from many sources. The journalists don't
announce their political affiliation, and I don't care. A balanced view of events, based upon facts,
is the only (composite) source that I trust.

You can't answer my questions, can you? That's because the US has not defined a specific enemy, nor
its own military objectives, nor has it offered any specific reasons for continuing occupation. No
exit strategies have been divulged to the public who are paying for this misguided misadventure
(through the nose). No estimates have been given by Bush or his cabinet for US casualties or
duration of Iraq occupation. Bush's hazy generalizations and ridiculous posturing and swagger are
all that we have to go by when writing checks for $87 BILLION DOLLARS, that's $87,000,000,000, or as
it was written on the check: Eighty Seven Billion Dollars and No Sense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But just suppose they would. Is this what is being demanded by the protestors in the UK and
elsewhere?

Iraq has no national aggression toward the US. War has not been

declared,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

though it could be said to exist.

You are a numb skull of the first rank. Of course Iraq under Saddam had all kinds of aggression
toward the US. Are you insane?

Ahh; but even the C-student would notice that Saddam has been deposed. I'll give you a passing grade
if you can cite examples of specific Iraqi national aggression or clear and present danger from Iraq
before the US invaded. Heck, just link Saddam to ongoing terrorist actions and/or the organization
of terrorism toward the US. Anything!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, and very much to the point, Saddam's secular Baathist-led government had done a
brilliant job of ridding Iraq of

religiously-motivated

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

terrorism for which the region is widely known. He did this through a heavy-handed military
dictatorship that ruled with an iron fist.

Terrorists

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

were rooted out and killed, on a scale that was manageable. Many

credible

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

political analysts made this point well before the ill-fated invasion of Iraq. They noted that
deposing Saddam would, in all likelihood, serve

as an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

invitation for Islamic terrorist groups to return to Iraq post haste.

You

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

see, forethought and analysis can be useful. Most of what has happened

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Iraq was predicted for this scenario long ago.

I think you are making some very good points in this paragraph, but it still can't justify what
Saddam and the Baathists did to all those who disagreed with them. What if Saddam did rid Iraq of
Islamic extremists? Was he any better? Of course not. He was worse. The terrorists that are now in
Iraq are exactly where we want them to be, or would you rather fight them on the streets of New
York and Washington.

An interesting point; but of course, it's like trying to hold back the tide. Another fool's errand.
Do you *really* think that there is a finite number of terrorists in the world? What do you think
motivates terrorism? Do you think the US can just go in a round 'em up like a bunch of cowboys?
You've got another think coming.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That Bush Jr. fails to see this should come as no surprise. He's shockingly ill-equipped to hold

such

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a powerful office. I've known janitors with more political vision than

Bush

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jr. (There are a lot of broom-pushing PhD's in the US, thanks to Bush economic policies.)

Yes, yes, Bush and his advisers are all idiots of course.

Finally we agree. Well, they're not all idiots; just very, very misguided, warlike idealogical
zealots. Does that sound like anybody else we could talk about? Think back a few years...across
the ocean...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would Bin Laden agree to call off the killers if in fact the US would "surrender".

You know for a fact that Bin Laden is directly involved, currently, in directing terrorism
toward the US troops in Iraq? Please cite.

Now you have finally proven yourself to be a TOTAL idiot. Congratulations! I admire anyone who is
a total anything.

Hey numbnuts, today's headlines stated very clearly that Bin Laden has "taken himself out of the
picture." IOW: He's no longer important to the US objectives. This is the most hilarious story that
I've read in a long time. It's just a spin doctored way of saying "the most powerful, well funded
and technologically capable nation in the world could not muster enough intelligence or military
tactics to locate Bin Laden and apprehend or assassinate him."

LOL! Yeah, that darned Bin Laden! He's near death from kidney failure; but that guy can run and hide
like nobody you've ever seen! How credible is this latest assertion, that Bin Laden (a) cannot be
found and/or (b) has voluntarily stepped down from centrally organizing terrorism against the US and
its allies? It's patently absurd.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am guessing no. If this war against the US (and the west in general perhaps) is about
demanding money, the demands won't end.

What makes you think the terrorists want money? If they wanted money,

why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are they killing themselves? Can't spend it when you're dead, can you?

It is not about money. See Zippy's post in this thread if you want to know what it is about.

LMAO! Yeah, Zippy's post was good for a laugh. Thanks. I needed another good laugh today (after
reading the spin on Bin Laden.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If this war is about religion, then it won't be over until we are all converted or killed. If
this war is about Israel, then it won't be over until Israel is no more.

Cutting off US support for Israel would quell any further anti-US

terrorist

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

actions. The US could rightfully be seen in such a case as voting in

favor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of Islamic dominance in the region, and might find powerful economic and military allies as a
result. (Remember: Saddam Hussein was on the US

payroll

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the not too distant past...)

Another idiotic statement. If Israel never existed everything would be as it is presently. The
liberals love to scape goat Israel for all the problems the West is having with the Arab
Muslim world.

You might want to review actual statements from actual Islamic groups before you make such
assertions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So do I think "surrender" will stop terror? No. Do I think anything will? Maybe not.

Now you're thinking clearly. There is a very good reason that the "war

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

terror" is a fool's errand: Terrorism cannot be stopped. Even a

thousand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

swaggering failed Texas daddy's boys could not change that basic fact.

Bush

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

won't die trying; but hundreds, potentially thousands, of US soldiers

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

die, and have died.

Before the War on Terrorism is ended we may have to knock off the likes of your kind too.

So, you're publicly advocating domestic terrorism against US citizens. I don't have to bother
turning you in: CARNIVORE already logged your posting. (Thanks, Atty. Ashcroft. Looks like those
expanded surveillance powers came in handy! Let me know when you have Ed in custody. Oh, yeah, I
forgot, you won't be telling anybody, including his family. It's a secret! Hey, don't rough him up
too much, unless you have to.)

Quoted message said:

Or better yet, we shall banish you to live among the Arabs and the Muslims and the Terrorists so
that you can have lots of time to reflect on the glories of another "civilization" since you hate
the West so much. But I am glad that you think only a few thousand Americans will die in the
defense of their country and of civilization and not hundreds of thousands. You are nothing but a
"cut and run" liberal. Be sure to vote for that idiot Dean if you get the chance.

Mmmkay. When your spaceship lands on planet Earth, maybe we can talk about actual military threats
to the US (which, basically, don't exist). Isn't it interesting that 15 of the 19 hijackers who
carried out the 9/11 terror attacks were from Saudi Arabia, a US ally. Not Iraq. Not Syria. Not
Afghanistan. Nobody knows who planned the attacks. Nobody knows who really trained the hijackers.
But it *is* known that our very own President's family is very tight with the Bin Laden family, and
has been for quite some time. Bush Sr. employed Osama as a consultant, and trained him for guerrilla
warfare. Gee. And now Osama Bin Laden has just mysteriously vanished again (er, I mean "taken
himself out of the picture."😉. And we don't seem the slightest bit concerned about it. Why is that,
do you suppose?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But if I had the will to try and stop it, I would start strategically with Iraq. Not for the
oil, not for the elimination of a dictator, but rather, for the strategic value of the
geography. I believe Saddam was the excuse the US used to establish a military foothold in the
Middle East. I think European leaders know it. It think Middle East Monarchs, Dictators, and
Theocrats know it. And none of them like it!

Ok, Jim, so let's say it is Pax Americana. Are you in favor of

colonizing a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

theopolitical minefield? Do you think the neocons - seeing globalization

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an unstoppable force - want to rule the world militarily so the US

corporate

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

execs can come out on top? (US high-tech and blue collar workers can

always

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

work as domestic servants for the neocon execs, I guess.)

[libelous nonsense snipped]

I'm still waiting...take all the time you like, Ed. We'll be in Iraq for a very long time. I'm sure
the answer will become more clear over time, so that even you can see it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So which is it, Jim? Why are our young men and women coming back in bodybags by the planeload?
Are they fighting a righteous - but doomed -

war

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on terrorism? Are they making the world safe from Saddam's WMD's?

(Oops, I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

forgot: That was a lie.) Or are they really just there to extend the

olive

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

branch of Pax Americana? Dying soldiers and hundreds of thousands of

US,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

British and global citizens want to know, and they're not going to stop protesting until they
get a straight answer about when it's going to

end.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You see, it is the protesters that care about the fate of the dying soldiers, and who remember
the lies upon lies that sent the soldiers to

Iraq

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the first place. What do you call it when dozens of powerful

government

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

leaders consipire to mislead their people through a propaganda and disinformation campaign (with
lapdog media as co-conspirators), sending hundreds of thousands of US citizens in uniform to die
fighting a WMD

threat

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that doesn't exist?

That about says it all.

So, you openly advocate public deceit from an appointed ^H^H^H^H^ elected president as a
justification for bloody war under false pretenses? If so, you would definitely fall into a tiny
minority of neocon apologists at the outer fringe of idealogical zealotry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We went over there - ostensibly - to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein.

This,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, despite the wisdom of George Bush Sr., who specifically warned

against

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this very action, for reasons that now must seem all too obvious to the unwise and shockingly
inexperienced Bush Jr. Citizens of the world now demand that Bush provide a specific exit
strategy for this ill-fated and ill-advised war. The Iraqi people demand and deserve to know
when their nation will return to a peaceful state. This is not too much to ask,

even

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if the estimates are imprecise. Bush and Blair have an obligation to

reveal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their intent on some level, not to continue swaggering and making

sweeping

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

generalizations that allude to an essentially endless war against an ill-defined enemy with
undefined objectives.

Rocketman wants us to cut and run. Ever the coward's solution to a world of troubles. You might
want to think about emigrating to France. You would feel right at home there. But most Americans
are not cowards like you and will fight to defend their country and their freedom.

Only warmongers see the world in your terms, because it justifies their paranoia. Luckily, there are
also men of peace in the world with the sense and decency to stop the cycle of aggression.

Please tell us all how the freedom of US citizens was in any way impeded by Iraq prior to this
current war and bloody occupation. Had they declared war against the US or its allies?

Quoted message said:

The War on Terrorism will be over when all the terrorists are dead along with their
despicable ideology. However, if you had your way we would be at war with terrorism for the
next thousand years.

As I said, and as many before me have said, there can be no "war on terrorism." It's an oxymoron.
The whole idea of terrorism is to strike in such a way that war can neither prevent nor eliminate
the threat. That's why it's so devastatingly effective, and why any attempt to eradicate it will
most likely stir it up even more. I invite you to examine the current situation in Iraq for obvious
proof of this assertion.

Quoted message said:

The war will be over when it is over and not before. What is so hard to understand about that.

Aaahh! So you *do* know the US strategies for defeating the enemy, and our exit strategies as well!
You've been holding out on us, Jim. Tell us, please, how we'll know we're winning, and how the enemy
will know they're losing.

Quoted message said:

But cut and run cowards like you want to surrender. Or better yet, leave it all up to the UN. If
Gore were president instead of Bush we would still be dickering with the UN and trying to
accommodate la belle France.

Nevermind diplomacy! Hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of Iraqi citizens are lined up waiting to
die for your cherished, warlike idealogies and ill-defined warmongering goals, Ed. Doesn't that make
you feel all warm inside?

Quoted message said:

Thank God you and your ilk are not running the affairs of this country anymore.

Yes, it's far better to spend ourselves into bankruptcy fighting and expensive and unending foreign
war with no winnable objectives as corporations outsource hundreds of thousands of US jobs,
plundering our tax base and creating even more poverty, crime and social ruin. That darned Bush! He
sure can run a business ^H^H^H^H^H^ country into the ground! Oh, and he's quite fond of dirty air,
too. He likes long walks in old-growth forests - as long as they're clear-cut. Yeah. That's my Bush!
Bribing the poor and tipping the rich, with that smirk on his face, knowing most Americans can't
remember his checkered, drug-abusing, drunk-driving, cowardly stateside AWOL past. All hail the
Deserter in Chief!

I gotta hand it to you, Ed. You right wingers sure can pick 'em!

-=B=-

"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"jim h" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The occupation of Iraq has little or nothing to do with terrorism. The people striking at U.S.
forces now are ex-Saddam loyalists and

disaffected

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

locals. They aren't Islamic fundamentalists, just like the Viet Cong weren't Communists. It's
just a huge misdirection of U.S. resources,

human

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and financial, serving an agenda that's never been openly or honestly articulated.

I am assuming everything you are saying above is in jest and that you are poking fun at those of
us who think precisely the opposite. I especially like that part about how there are no Islamic
extremists in Iraq the same way there were no Viet Cong communists in Vietnam. Thanks for the
good laugh!

Naturally, like all of your blowhard ilk, you have credible, factual sources to back up your
assertion that Islamic extremists are the primary agressive force against US occupying forces in
Iraq, right? Do you know, for a fact, that the Viet Cong were communists? How do you know? Is it
because US propaganda newsreels told you so? Did you find Communist Party membership cards on the
dead bodies of VC guerillas that you personally took out? And what percentage, across Viet Nam, of
these card-carrying Communists were there? Maybe you could just tell by the Commie look in their
eyes. Yeah, that's it! That's all anybody needs when fighting a bloody war, right Ed?

LOL! Thanks for the laugh.

i write only two statement: at today, there's more americans deads on iraq than in the whole vietnam
war (another mistake... why u.s. presidents don't learn histoty and learn how dont' make the same
mistakes of previous guys?) second statement: some days ago, at nassirya, 19 italians
('carabinieri'😉, 2 civil guys and about 10 civil iraq guys died for a bomb on a truck the italians
are soldiers, but not from an army, 'carabineri' are our police and they are in iraq to help local
police his mission in called 'peace keeping', but without bush's war there's not a need of a peace
keeping mission, and 19 italians guys today will be still alive sorry for my english, but i have so
much word to say to people like mr. dolan but i can't anyway, here in europe we had a war, my father
remember the bombs, and we know what's a war... i think if people like mr. dolan (and mr. bush) will
stand only 10minutes under a bombs attack, they will change their mind in a second i think mr. bush
and mr. clinton aren't really brainful (?) persons, but mr. clinton war arrested because he was
againts war, bush hasn't only few words mate

"tzenobite" skrevt...

Quoted message said:

i write only two statement: at today, there's more americans deads on iraq than in the whole
vietnam war (another mistake... why u.s. presidents don't learn histoty and learn how dont' make
the same mistakes of previous guys?)

Ehm? I don't think thats correct.

"One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000
wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars,
amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam
veterans are severely disabled. [McCaffrey]"

Mikael

Tom, I am certain you can address the human rights violations of Israel. I am sure you can comment
on their violations of international law. Should they resolve both. Yes. Will it stop them from
being targets? I don't think so.

As to the US exploitation of the Middle East (OIL), I would love to see the US take a strong stand
against the dictators and monarchs in Saudi Arabia, Syria and the like. Clearly that requires a long
term plan that would not devastate our economy in the short term but also rid the US of our
addiction in the long term. Should this be done? YES! Would it stop the US from being targets? I
doubt it? But perhaps it would encourage more to bring forward better intelligence.... I don't
know..... It is a nice thought.

Jim

Barry, you make several good points. I agree the mess in Iraq is exactly what BUSH I wanted to
avoid. And I apologize for not having the time to respond to each of your points. In short, let me
be clear. I was NOT in favor of this war from the beginning. But I am truly interest in listening to
other opinions regarding what to do now. Regarding the enemy, anyone who wants ME dead simply
because I was born in the US is the enemy. Who is that? I don't know. I'd like to know. And finally,
If I were to "give up", what are the terms? Barry, I welcome your thoughts.

Jim

"tzenobite" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

i write only two statement: at today, there's more americans deads on iraq than in the whole
vietnam war (another mistake... why u.s. presidents don't learn histoty and learn how dont' make
the same mistakes of previous guys?) second statement: some days ago, at nassirya, 19 italians
('carabinieri'😉, 2 civil guys and about 10 civil iraq guys died for a bomb on a truck the italians
are soldiers, but not from an army, 'carabineri' are our police and they are in iraq to help local
police his mission in called 'peace keeping', but without bush's war there's not a need of a peace
keeping mission, and 19 italians guys today will be still alive sorry for my english, but i have
so much word to say to people like mr. dolan but i can't anyway, here in europe we had a war, my
father remember the bombs, and we know what's a war... i think if people like mr. dolan (and mr.
bush) will stand only 10minutes under a bombs attack, they will change their mind in a second i
think mr. bush and mr. clinton aren't really brainful (?) persons, but mr. clinton war arrested
because he was againts war, bush hasn't only few words mate

Gli Americani che richiedono le guerre inutili sono vigliacchi. Non dovranno soffrire o morire dalle
bombe o dalle pallottole come vostri italiani del collega, migliaia della gente irachena e dei
soldati degli Stati Uniti sono morto. Siete di destra: Se ritenessero la terra frantumarsi sotto
loro da un'incursione della bomba e se vedessero la carneficina ed il suffering, cambierebbero idea
immediatamente. I nostri giornali sono la propaganda - censurano deliberatamente le immagini
sgradevoli che girerebbero i cittadini americani contro queste costoso e stupido guerra.

Grazie per l'offerta della prospettiva nuova. Li abbiamo capiti bene. Il vostro inglese è molto più
meglio del mio italiano! (sono felice là sono traduttori automatici...)

-=B=-

English Translation:

Americans who call for needless wars are cowards. They won't have to suffer or die from bombs or
bullets as your fellow Italians, thousands of Iraqi people and US soldiers have died. You are right:
If they felt the earth shatter under them from a bomb raid, and if they saw the carnage and
suffering, they would change their minds instantly. Our newspapers are propaganda - they
deliberately censor the unpleasant images that would turn American citizens against this expensive
and stupid war.

Thank you for offering a new perspective. We understood you well. Your English is much better than
my Italian! (I'm glad there are automatic translators...)

Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

You are a numb skull of the first rank. Of course Iraq under Saddam had all kinds of aggression
toward the US. Are you insane?...

Mr. Dolan:

Please cite specific instances of Iraqi aggression towards the US under the Hussein regime.

No, you cite the instances, or do you fear that if you were to do so you might have to reevaluate
your position on the war. I've got better things to do than to look up information for you that you
can easily look up for yourself if you have a mind to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The terrorists that are now in Iraq are exactly where we want them to be, or would you rather
fight them on the streets of New York and Washington....

Attacking forces of occupation is considered by both international law and convention to be
legitimate resistance, not terrorism. Those attacking US forces in Iraq are no different than
President Reagan's "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Anyone who has
not been brainwashed by neo-conservative propaganda would recognize this.

We are rounding up all those who are involved in terrorism. I would kill them all but I doubt if we
will ever find the guts to do that. There is nothing legitimate about what terrorists do. They kill
civilians in order to create fear. What they do is not warfare, it is murder. I believe the Freedom
Fighters in Afghanistan knew enough to target the Soviet military and not to target innocent
civilians. Or maybe you do not believe there is any such thing as innocent civilians.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, yes, Bush and his advisers are all idiots of course....

Now you are making sense, Mr. Dolan.

Selective editing. Do not do too much of this sort of thing or I will get really [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is not about money. See Zippy's post in this thread if you want to know what it is about....

Presta vs. Schrader?

Quoted message said:

Rocketman wants us to cut and run. Ever the coward's solution to a world of troubles. You might
want to think about emigrating to France. You would feel right at home there. But most Americans
are not cowards like you and will fight to defend their country and their freedom....

Mr. Dolan confuses foolhardiness and bravery.

You confuse everything with everything. You are for cut and run. Be sure to vote for your man Dean
if it turns out that he wins the Dem nomination. He is all for cut and run too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The War on Terrorism will be over when all the terrorists are dead along with their despicable
ideology....

Quoted message said:

I hope this includes all the governmental and government backed organizations that commit the
majority of terrorist acts. The US could make a start by shutting down the Western Hemisphere
Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly US Army School of the Americas) where many of the
worst abuses of human rights in Central and South America have been trained, and by withdrawing
military aid from countries that violate human rights.

Mr. Sherman seems to believe that the terrorists are just resistance fighters who are engaging in
honorable warfare. The fact is that they are the scum of the earth. They target innocent
civilians. They are no better than murderers. And then he compounds his stupidity by implying
that the US is somehow responsible for the production of terrorists with his blather about
American military aid to other governments in places like Central and South America. He would
equate what we do in aiding other countries militarily with what the terrorists are doing with
their rampage of murder and mayhem. Now you know why liberals are bankrupt and why the American
people hold them in contempt.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

... The war will be over when it is over and not before....

Mr. Dolan discovers truisms!

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

stratrider said:

... As to the US exploitation of the Middle East (OIL), I would love to see the US take a strong
stand against the dictators and monarchs in Saudi Arabia, Syria and the like. Clearly that
requires a long term plan that would not devastate our economy in the short term but also rid the
US of our addiction in the long term. Should this be done? YES! Would it stop the US from being
targets? I doubt it? But perhaps it would encourage more to bring forward better intelligence....
I don't know..... It is a nice thought.

No respectable geologist believes that deposits of hydrocarbon fuels are being created at a rate
that would supply more than a miniscule fraction of current consumption. With the growing use of
energy (SE Asia in particular) economically recoverable [1] petroleum deposits will be exhausted in
a half-century or less. We have the choice of changing to a sustainable energy economy/society now,
or we can fight wars for the next half-century over the remaining supply of petroleum, and then reap
the chaos that will result when the supply nears exhaustion.

We all know what the policy of United States CEO [censored] Cheney is.

[1] Where extraction takes less energy than is contained in the oil recovered.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

"There is enough in the world for everyone's need; there is not enough for everyone's greed." -
Mohandas Gandhi

stratrider said:

Barry, you make several good points. I agree the mess in Iraq is exactly what BUSH I wanted to
avoid....

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs," wrote
George Bush Sr in A World Transformed. "Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have
been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy' we
could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to
set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus
unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route,
the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." - G.
H. W. Bush

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

brian hughes said:

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

You are a numb skull of the first rank. Of course Iraq under Saddam had all kinds of
aggression toward the US. Are you insane?...

Mr. Dolan:

Please cite specific instances of Iraqi aggression towards the US under the Hussein regime.

There were many many surface to air missiles shot at our fighters patrolling for Northern Watch
and Southern Watch throughout the bulk of the last decade. Iraq agreed to be non-agressive, but
reneged....

Iraq was firing missiles WITHIN ITS NATIONAL BOUNDARIES. What a threat to the United States. I
wanted to go hide under the bed.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Edward Dolan said:

Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

You are a numb skull of the first rank. Of course Iraq under Saddam had all kinds of
aggression toward the US. Are you insane?...

Mr. Dolan:

Please cite specific instances of Iraqi aggression towards the US under the Hussein regime.

No, you cite the instances, or do you fear that if you were to do so you might have to reevaluate
your position on the war. I've got better things to do than to look up information for you that
you can easily look up for yourself if you have a mind to.

No Mr. Dolan, YOU made the contention that Iraq under the Hussein regime was committing acts of
aggression towards the United States, so the burden of proof fall on you.

Your statement is [un]worthy of a right-wing talk show host - you try to make it appear that
something that you have no proof of is both true and widely accepted (by those with authority in
the field).

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Edward Dolan said:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, yes, Bush and his advisers are all idiots of course....

Now you are making sense, Mr. Dolan.

Selective editing. Do not do too much of this sort of thing or I will get really [censored]....

Mr. Dolan is going to report me to the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Edward Dolan said:

Nonsense, the entire Middle East is a pig sty (except for Israel) and we are cleaning it up. You
apparently have amnesia about the first Gulf War when Saddam made a grab for all the oil in the
Arab Middle East....

I recall that the United States Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie told Hussein, "We have no opinion
on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker
has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait
issue is not associated with America." eight days before Iraq invaded Kuwait.

The US government also claimed after the invasion of Kuwait that Iraq was massing troops on the
Saudi border. This has subsequently been shown to be as much a lie [1] as the story about premature
Kuwaiti babies being removed from hospital incubators was.

Quoted message said:

By the way, that is part of what we are doing in Iraq - supporting human rights. A free and
democratic Iraq could be the beginning of the transformation of the entire Middle East. Let us
hope so anyway.

Actually, the Coalition Provisional Authority plan to privatize the Iraqi economy by selling of
state assets would be a violation of international law, not to mention a violation of the rights of
the Iraqi people. Only a legitimate Iraqi government may make the decision to sell such assets to
private investors.

As for the US conquest of Iraq being in support of human rights - thanks for the laugh, Mr. Dolan.

[1] Satellite photographs of the border region at the time have become available.

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

"There is enough in the world for everyone's need; there is not enough for everyone's greed." -
Mohandas Gandhi

"stratrider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Barry, you make several good points. I agree the mess in Iraq is exactly what BUSH I wanted to
avoid. And I apologize for not having the time to respond to each of your points. In short, let me
be clear. I was NOT in favor of this war from the beginning. But I am truly interest in listening
to other opinions regarding what to do now. Regarding the enemy, anyone who wants ME dead simply
because I was born in the US is the enemy. Who is that? I don't know. I'd like to know. And
finally, If I were to "give up", what are the terms? Barry, I welcome your thoughts.

Jim, first of all, I want to thank you most sincerely for your balanced viewpoint.

I'm going to hazard a sketch for an exit strategy. I'm not a Middle East political or military
scholar, so I'm sure it's full of holes; but somebody has to start somewhere, I guess.

- Get Iraq's cities back to normal functioning. Don't rebuild the whole country, just the basic
infrastructure, and police forces. We're trying to get our troops out of there, ASAP.
- Employ *Iraqi workers*, paid *directly* with US funds, to rebuild Iraq. US construction firms
should be pulled off of the projects completely, their contracts cancelled immediately. This is a
huge conflict of interest, and sends a very negative signal to the people of Iraq, as well as
being further proof of Bush corruption.
- Identify the insurgent groups, handle them with appropriate force, or diplomacy as required, with
the understanding that many of them could be impulsive Iraqi citizens, enraged over what could
have been accidental civilian deaths (which seem to be fairly numerous, from what I've read).
- Bush should bring an executive entourage to Iraq to apologize in person for the mishandling of
Iraqi civilians, and to listen to the Iraqi peoples' concerns in detail. Staying out of Iraq is
sending a clear message that he doesn't care what happens to the people of Iraq.
- Abandon plans to sell off public assets to pay for the war, which is a violation of
international law.
- Let Iraq rule itself, and give it the money and access to scholars needed to fashion their new
government and economy.
- Keep the US ground and air forces in the area sufficient to quell any uprisings; but begin the
reduction of coalition forces in Iraq until a small and manageable force is left to keep the
peace. They should be able to call in air strikes as needed, which means maintaining air
superiority.
- Rotate out US troops and rotate in UN coalition troops to handle the peacekeeping duties (while
continuing to maintain US air superiority).
- As Iraq's new government takes hold, further reduce number of UN peacekeepers, while training
Iraq's new army.

Optimistic timeline: 3-5 years Pessimistic timeline: 8-10 years

There, now, that wasn't so hard, was it? Again, I don't claim to be a military scholar; but these
seem to be achievable, worthwhile goals that go far beyond the swaggering generalizations offered by
Bush and Co. Note that I didn't specify what kind of government Iraq should create. Also note well
that I have only acknowledged the need to quell small insurgencies, and not conduct a "war on
terror." That's because I believe pulling out US forces will stop attacks against those forces
(funny how that works ;-) and that terror attacks in the region will be reduced to near zero. The
war on terror is a farce, and the US should abandon it post haste. The more Bush swaggers, the more
US diplomacy fails, and the more anti-US hatred is created. Stop that cycle by removing the Deserter
in Chief from his ill-gotten post - preferably tarred and feathered.

-=Barry=-

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

stratrider said:

Barry, you make several good points. I agree the mess in Iraq is exactly what BUSH I wanted to
avoid....

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs," wrote
George Bush Sr in A World Transformed. "Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have
been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy' we
could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying
to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq,
thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of
international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route,
the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." - G.
H. W. Bush

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Don't you hate being right all the time? ;-)

Just to put a fine point on it, historians and political scientists were making these same
assertions on a daily basis, in many online and printed publications and on television, in the
months leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, well before Bush's foolish break with the UN. Unlike
the Deserter in Chief, they had read the lessons of history, and they listened to their fathers'
wisdom, gained from experience.

I wasn't in favor of Desert Storm; but it is encouraging to know that Bush Sr. exercised appropriate
restraint, and wrote these words of wisdom to *try to stop future presidents from making foolish
mistakes*!!!!

History lessons - try some today!

-=Barry=-

sorry, it's a mistake of mine if i remember correctly now, i've heard something like '400 u.s.
soldiers died till now, more than in the first 4 years of vietnam war btw, i've heard this some days
ago on tv, i can't remeber the whole thread thanks mate

In article <[email hidden]>, Mikael Seierup

Quoted message said:

"tzenobite" skrevt...

Quoted message said:

i write only two statement: at today, there's more americans deads on iraq than in the whole
vietnam war (another mistake... why u.s. presidents don't learn histoty and learn how dont' make
the same mistakes of previous guys?)

Ehm? I don't think thats correct.

"One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and
304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other
wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam
veterans are severely disabled. [McCaffrey]"

Mikael

Rocketman said:

... Don't you hate being right all the time? ;-)

No. 🙂

Tom Sherman - Planet Earth

Quoted message said:

Our newspapers are propaganda - they deliberately censor the unpleasant images that would turn
American citizens against this expensive and stupid war.

i know you american citizen aren't as informed as we in europe are we don't have at all (i think) a
nation where news media are censored isn't a free nation, and it isn't a real democracy is this the
democracy model that mr. bush says iraq and afganistan needs? every people make his own democracy
model himself you know how much persons in london shows their boards and scream thier slogans
againts mr. bush and the iraq war? this morning i've heard that pentagon says at least 17 u.s.
soldiers done suicide, you know it? (i don't know how say it better) i think now the majority of
americans and english people want to stop this war, mr. bush and mr. blair know it, and if they
don't they aren't democracies leader, simply because they was elected to follow the people wishes,
and they now don't btw, here in italy it's the same... mate