Is Terrorism Fine When the USA is Behind it?

[White Doors]

Would you support an attack on Israel for its violations of UN Resolutions .. which far exceed those that Iraq was in violation of. In fact, Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any nation in its history.

I suspect that you would not support an attack on Israel .. but either UN Resolutions are valid or they are not. Suddenly "enforcement" means something else

And which BINDING Un resolutions said Israel had to remove itself or face military action? Pray tell.

Also, tell me how Israel captured territory on an offesive military manner. Who is Israel's Kuwait?

Feel stupid yet? Doubt it. You would have to be half-smart to see how dumb your correlations are.

Pity.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear geoffrey,

Apart from you and Black Dog replying here, it seems like our resident troll is simply having a conversation with himself, via multiple names. The point isn't to have actual debate, it is to get you and Black Dog to waste your time by responding. Our troll will have a hard time beating the guy who translated the bible into 'pig latin' for the 'time-waster award', though.

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/ible-bay.html

[blackascoal]

Dear geoffrey,

Apart from you and Black Dog replying here, it seems like our resident troll is simply having a conversation with himself, via multiple names. The point isn't to have actual debate, it is to get you and Black Dog to waste your time by responding. Our troll will have a hard time beating the guy who translated the bible into 'pig latin' for the 'time-waster award', though.

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/ible-bay.html

Who is the resident troll?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Russia and China have more global respect around the world now than America does.

That says more aobut the thugs and the thug-apologists (europe) in the rest of the world than it does about America, my friend.

I disagree my brother.

We are in the midst of two failed wars, we are attacking and provoking in Iran and threatening others in the region, and we are bombing in Somalia .. but It's their fault that they think we're dangerous?

The truth is, we are dangerous and out of control .. and a great many Americans believe that as well on both sides of the political divide. Who's fault is that?

The US used force to enforce UN resolution with respect to weapons inspections which were flouted by Saddam for 10 years after the gulf war. Force that the UN never would have used. Enforcement is an integral part of UN resolutions.

That Sunnis and Shia wanna kick eachother to shit is unfortunate. But the US has only lost 3000 soldier in the years its been there - hardly an asskicking.

If you haven't heard, Iran and Syria and funding and arming the insurgency in Iraq. If the US wants to take action to stop that it has every right.

As well, Ahmedinejad has publically stated on more than one occasion that his intention is to "wipe Israel off the map".

He has also publically pursued a Nuclear program for Iran in between these anti-jew hate speeches - a program which, by the way, is opposed by virtually the entire western world yet he continues. Why? Because Ahmedinejad knows this: the only country in the world that backs up it's demands with enforcement is the USA - and they're kinda busy right now.

The US mid-east strategy will pay off lnog run if we're patient - alot to ask for a culture with a 5 minute attention span. Meantime, if Bush wants to take on Iran in a proxy battle inside Iraq, good on him.

With all due respect brother, I find your comments astounding at this point in the knowledge of what really happened.

Would you support an attack on Israel for its violations of UN Resolutions .. which far exceed those that Iraq was in violation of. In fact, Israel is in violation of more UN Resolutions than any nation in its history.

I suspect that you would not support an attack on Israel .. but either UN Resolutions are valid or they are not. Suddenly "enforcement" means something else.

You post your comments as if you are completely unaware of the fallout from this disaster. Are you suggesting that America needs no allies? That we have "the right" to do whatever we want and murder whomever we want?

The mindless attack on Iraq only empowered Iran, who is the only real winner in this horror. Now, Bush and his minions have set their sights on Iran .. but where are the troops going to come from? Are you going to join up to fight for a cause you believe in?

With all the fraud and deception that has been revealed, you are among a tiny minority who still refuse to face the reality of this monumental blunder.

Why oh why is the one of the most common arguments against US foreign policy "HEY! THEY DID IT IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO IT IN THAT COUNTRY" ???

Don't ask me! It's irrelevant. It was right to enforce the UN sanctions and resolutions with respect to weapons inspections in Iraq.

Saddam may or may not have been a threat. But he was thumbing his nose at the UN - just as Iran is now on it's nuclear program. Right in our faces.

Whether Israel has done so may or may not be true. I'd like to see some examples. But in any case, it's not really relevant as to why we (US) went into Iraq.

[Black Dog]

The US used force to enforce UN resolution with respect to weapons inspections which were flouted by Saddam for 10 years after the gulf war. Force that the UN never would have used. Enforcement is an integral part of UN resolutions.

Do you realize how ridiclous it is for someone who despises the UN to invoke it as a defense for the U.S.'s policy?

That Sunnis and Shia wanna kick eachother to shit is unfortunate. But the US has only lost 3000 soldier in the years its been there - hardly an asskicking.

The casualty levels are irrelevant.

If you haven't heard, Iran and Syria and funding and arming the insurgency in Iraq. If the US wants to take action to stop that it has every right.

So they made a mess of it and the only thing left to do is make a bigger mess.

As well, Ahmedinejad has publically stated on more than one occasion that his intention is to "wipe Israel off the map".

*Yawn*

He has also publically pursued a Nuclear program for Iran in between these anti-jew hate speeches - a program which, by the way, is opposed by virtually the entire western world yet he continues. Why? Because Ahmedinejad knows this: the only country in the world that backs up it's demands with enforcement is the USA - and they're kinda busy right now.

So you acknowledge the U.S. is "too busy" to deal with Iran, yet you're proposing that they do just that. How?

The US mid-east strategy will pay off lnog run if we're patient - alot to ask for a culture with a 5 minute attention span. Meantime, if Bush wants to take on Iran in a proxy battle inside Iraq, good on him.

Maybe you can tell us what that strategy is, becaus efrom here it looks like it consists of "getting biogged down in a regional war."

[JerrySeinfeld]

Do you realize how ridiclous it is for someone who despises the UN to invoke it as a defense for the U.S.'s policy?

"Despises"? THAT'S irrelevant.

So they made a mess of it and the only thing left to do is make a bigger mess.

For you: "Mess" = "Anything that takes longer than 2 years"

There is lots of work left to be done with the thugs, terrorists and armogeddonists of the mid-east. Bush has the balls not to run away when things get tough.

So you acknowledge the U.S. is "too busy" to deal with Iran, yet you're proposing that they do just that. How?

They are already fighting Iran and Syria, the two countries who want so badly for the USA to leave so they can continue the oppression of women, to implement the hardline Ayatollah version of Islam and continue the Israel extermination plans without a US presense in the region. What did you THINK was giong on in Iraq, anyway?

BTW I find it amusing that you on the left - who historically had your panties in a knot about Nukes in the '80's now yawn at the prospect of a jew-hating Islamic extremist getting his hands on them.

You hissy fit about ousting an Iraq thug-dictator who murdered thousands of his own people, yet you yawn at a jew-hating nutcase getting nukes.

Sometimes marvel at what irrational Bush hatred leads to.

[Black Dog]

"Despises"? THAT'S irrelevant.

Noooooo. Let me explain, slowly. See, you run around bitching about the UN and its relevance and legitimacy. So, if the UN is as illegitimate as you say, then how is any action based on it's decisions legitimate?

For you: "Mess" = "Anything that takes longer than 2 years"

There is lots of work left to be done with the thugs, terrorists and armogeddonists of the mid-east. Bush has the balls not to run away when things get tough.

Claptrap.

They are already fighting Iran and Syria, the two countries who want so badly for the USA to leave so they can continue the oppression of women, to implement the hardline Ayatollah version of Islam and continue the Israel extermination plans without a US presense in the region. What did you THINK was giong on in Iraq, anyway?

IOW: they are "too busy" to deal with Iran because they are busy dealing with Iran. Wow, your grasp of teh situation is really solid.

BTW I find it amusing that you on the left - who historically had your panties in a knot about Nukes in the '80's now yawn at the prospect of a jew-hating Islamic extremist getting his hands on them.

Nuclear proliferation is, without adoubt, a bad thing. But I'm not going to piss my pants over it: it's not like a nuclear Iran would be much more of a threat.

You hissy fit about ousting an Iraq thug-dictator who murdered thousands of his own people, yet you yawn at a jew-hating nutcase getting nukes.

Because Ahlamajamadingdong is one guy, and not even the main guy.

Sometimes marvel at what irrational Bush hatred leads to.

*Yawn*

[August1991]

Maybe you can tell us what that strategy is, becaus efrom here it looks like it consists of "getting biogged down in a regional war."

Mark Steytn had a good line about that. Iran is not worrying about getting "bogged down" in Iraq, nor does it apparently need an exit strategy. Syria wasn't worried about being "bogged down" in Lebanon and its "exit strategy" is anything but.

Fortunately, the president of the United States has the resources and patience to be able to think long term.

[GostHacked]

We are in the midst of two failed wars, we are attacking and provoking in Iran and threatening others in the region, and we are bombing in Somalia .. but It's their fault that they think we're dangerous?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/01/11...a.ap/index.html

Looks like they did not hit their targets. And why the hell would they even make an attack in another country? This is like the US has no respect of territory/borders at all.

If an escalation in the area is not happening, then why is another carrier strike group on the way there?

Terrorism - the THREAT of an attack, not the action of the attack is well. If this is the true definition of terrorism, then the current US administration are masters of terror. They are always saying we should be scared and ready for an attack at anytime. Terrorists want to blow up our cities and kill our people. Al-Quaeda (however the hell you want to spell it) wants to hurt us. ect ect. Don't want the evidence to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. I bet you will be hearing this rhetoric in regards to Iran soon enough.

BE SCARED, but don't worry, Bush is taking care of all of us. Give up all your rights and you can have perfect freedom.

And you know, 'attacking' the US right now might be worth the effort. Good portion of the US military is half way around the world. Two carrier strike groups, another on the way to the Persian Gulf. Twenty thousand more troops being deployed. Why can they not send 200,000 troops to actually kill the insurgency, KILL it, secure the area and then it would be easier for the new Iraqi government to stand up.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/11/s...ess/#more-13477

I love Keith. He must write his own reports. I mean he must actually write them, and not some group that writes the speeches for him. He is right on so much here it is rediculous. Bush Apologists cannot compete with this man. So much 'Kerry flip-flopping' it astounds me.

Please watch the Keith Olbermann clip. Hate to see what Sharkman would have to say about someone so negative about Bush. Just another Bush hater though, right? The facts are clearly laid out here.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.iran/index.html

YAY FOR TROOP AUGMENTATION!! Nice one there Rice.

I do not understand the raid on the Iranian diplomats in Iraq. Which for what I have read so far, indicate that Iraq and Iran are trying to pursue diplomatic ties again. Friends close, enemies closer? Possibly. I knew that Iran was next, just after the invasion of Iraq. For those who did NOT see this coming, I really feel sorry for you. Wake up people, this is the LONG WAR Bush was talking about. The war that could last .. decades? Longer? Who knows!! Total transformation of the Middle East.

http://infowars.net/articles/january2007/110107Failla.htm

The US mid-east strategy will pay off long run if we're patient - alot to ask for a culture with a 5 minute attention span. Meantime, if Bush wants to take on Iran in a proxy battle inside Iraq, good on him.

It's not that we have ADD, it's just that I cannot tolerate any more bullshit. Those of us who cannot listen for more than 5 minutes are very aware of the REAL situation in Iraq and had the foresight the current US Administration lacks.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Doggy from time to time you make a point, but not often. It's irritating debating you, not because your points are valid but because you rarely make an argument.

Your style - alot of your posts are very long scrolls broken up with one line shootdowns like "bullshit." or "no, you're wrong". It's very difficult to continue a debate in which anyone else here can participate, because if I want to retort, I have to quote "bullshit" then respond...or "claptrap" then respond. By that point, everyone lse in the forum will have o keep reading back through pages of your scrolls and quotations to see what the debate is about.

Justa thought, but instead of spending your time trying to poopoo people's points, you might want to think about constructing your own arguments.

You remind me of the old guys in the balconey on the Muppets.

No offense - just a thought...I doubt you'll listen.

[Black Dog]

Doggy from time to time you make a point, but not often. It's irritating debating you, not because your points are valid but because you rarely make an argument.

Your style - alot of your posts are very long scrolls broken up with one line shootdowns like "bullshit." or "no, you're wrong". It's very difficult to continue a debate in which anyone else here can participate, because if I want to retort, I have to quote "bullshit" then respond...or "claptrap" then respond. By that point, everyone lse in the forum will have o keep reading back through pages of your scrolls and quotations to see what the debate is about.

Justa thought, but instead of spending your time trying to poopoo people's points, you might want to think about constructing your own arguments.

You remind me of the old guys in the balconey on the Muppets.

No offense - just a thought...I doubt you'll listen.

I'm always ready to debate and respond to points. But first, I need something to work with. And-let's face it-"Bush roolz and all youse lefties are too stoopid to see it LOL!" is not an argument. I've asked you to expound on what the "strategy" you're blathering about entails, what the ultimate goal is, and how the two plan will accomplish said goal. But it's like you're just pulling random soundbites together and trying to pass it off as strategy.

Mark Steytn had a good line about that. Iran is not worrying about getting "bogged down" in Iraq, nor does it apparently need an exit strategy. Syria wasn't worried about being "bogged down" in Lebanon and its "exit strategy" is anything but.

Point being?

Fortunately, the president of the United States has the resources and patience to be able to think long term.

He has until January 2009.

[JerrySeinfeld]

First of all, the topic at hand is US "attacks" on Iranian outposts in Iraq or along the border.

My response was, and is: IF that is happening, there isn't anything wrong with it given Iran's meddling ni the Iraq war.

[blackascoal]

Doggy from time to time you make a point, but not often. It's irritating debating you, not because your points are valid but because you rarely make an argument.

Your style - alot of your posts are very long scrolls broken up with one line shootdowns like "bullshit." or "no, you're wrong". It's very difficult to continue a debate in which anyone else here can participate, because if I want to retort, I have to quote "bullshit" then respond...or "claptrap" then respond. By that point, everyone lse in the forum will have o keep reading back through pages of your scrolls and quotations to see what the debate is about.

Justa thought, but instead of spending your time trying to poopoo people's points, you might want to think about constructing your own arguments.

You remind me of the old guys in the balconey on the Muppets.

No offense - just a thought...I doubt you'll listen.

Not listening to crap like this would be a marvelous thing to do.

[August1991]

Mark Steytn had a good line about that. Iran is not worrying about getting "bogged down" in Iraq, nor does it apparently need an exit strategy. Syria wasn't worried about being "bogged down" in Lebanon and its "exit strategy" is anything but.

Point being?

Iran has no exit strategy from Iraq and no one in Iran is talking about one. So why is the US left (primarily) talking about quagmires, bogs and exit strategies?

If you take a long run view of this, the US should deal with Iraq using teh same timeframe as Iran does or Syria has in Lebanon or Israel has since 1948. Frankly, I think the US can do better and actually solve the problem but I don't know what the solution will be.

There's another way of looking at this. If Iran has no need for an exit strategy, then what does that imply?

----

Stability in the Middle East is an oxymoron. The US has gotten rid of a tinpot dictator and it has clearly altered the rules of the game. That's an improvement over what existed before because nothing could be worse than what existed before.

I personally was against the US invasion of Iraq because I imagined what it would be like to have US soldiers running amok in Montreal, Quebec or Canada, making a mess of our various linguistic and regional divisions. I still think Iraqis should have gotten rid of Saddam themselves, like Romanians got rid of Ceausescu.

OTOH, I can appreciate teh argument of Bush Jnr, Blair et al and I can certainly understand that once in, it is necessary to stay the course.

[blackascoal]

Fortunately, the president of the United States has the resources and patience to be able to think long term.

Obviously this is from someone who did not see the clown in his recent scaryman address to the nation .. nor does this person have the slightest sense of what is happening in America.

[Canadian Blue]

Obviously this is from someone who did not see the clown in his recent scaryman address to the nation .. nor does this person have the slightest sense of what is happening in America.

We are all living in the Matrix right, and I'm guessing your Morpheous.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Fortunately, the president of the United States has the resources and patience to be able to think long term.

Obviously this is from someone who did not see the clown in his recent scaryman address to the nation .. nor does this person have the slightest sense of what is happening in America.

what does a war in Iraq have to do with what is happening in America? oh yea - public mood swings.

Great idea there...surrender in the battle because the ADD public is bored.

[Black Dog]

what does a war in Iraq have to do with what is happening in America? oh yea - public mood swings.

Don't these ingrates know taht America operates under thr führerprinzip?

Great idea there...surrender in the battle because the ADD public is bored.

I'll ask again: what is the strategy, what are its objectives, and how will your ideas (destabalize or attack Iran and Syria for example) will advance them. I

[Black Dog]

Iran has no exit strategy from Iraq and no one in Iran is talking about one. So why is the US left (primarily) talking about quagmires, bogs and exit strategies?

Hmmm. Iran is near, the U.S. is far. Iran is Muslim, the U.S. is not. Iran can influence affairs in Iraq without a large-scale commitment, the U.S. needs to maintain a large, costly military prescence there.

If you take a long run view of this, the US should deal with Iraq using teh same timeframe as Iran does or Syria has in Lebanon or Israel has since 1948. Frankly, I think the US can do better and actually solve the problem but I don't know what the solution will be.

How about this: what's the "problem"?

There's another way of looking at this. If Iran has no need for an exit strategy, then what does that imply?

See above.

Stability in the Middle East is an oxymoron. The US has gotten rid of a tinpot dictator and it has clearly altered the rules of the game. That's an improvement over what existed before because nothing could be worse than what existed before.

Nonsense. Things could be a helluva lot worse.

OTOH, I can appreciate teh argument of Bush Jnr, Blair et al and I can certainly understand that once in, it is necessary to stay the course.

Again: why? Even if the entire venture wasn't being run by amateurs and idealogues, why reinforce failure? Escalation, be it in the form of more troops or in an atack on Iran, is not goping to solve Iraq's problems or those of the region in the long term

[JerrySeinfeld]

The basic strategy is to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. As well, the idea is to have western presence in the region and to protect human rights and freedoms. A US presence in Iraq will do a number of things. It will occupy the terrorists (success). It will spread human/women's rights (success). It will shatter the illusion of peace in the middle east (success). It will begin to interrupt the constant stream of weaponry from Iran through Syria into southern Lebanon (success). It will precipitae a commitment and reaction by thug supporters in both Syria and Iran (success). It will allow the USA to take on the root of the hardline Islmofascists worldwide (Iran) in a proxy war without committing troops directly to Iran (success). It will demonstrate the lengths to which Islamothug rulers will go to keep women oppressed and hide the virtues of democracy from it's backward society (success).

Worldwide Islamo-Terrorism has it's roots in the middle east. The middle east is a place where we have tricked ourselves into ignoring whats happening there. The hardline versions of jihad islamism have been exported from there to places like Somalia, Chechnya, Argentina, London, Paris, Brussels, and yes, New York and Washington. That's a fact. These mysoginistoc f*ckers shoot women in the head or hang them for BEING RAPED.

After decades of mid-east peace talks and agreements which have led to no peace, the strategy is to shatter the illusion of those photo-op handshakes between arafat and israel.

The strategy is to be there LONG TERM with a presence and establish societies that don't resemble the year 1135.

[Guthrie]

The basic strategy is to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. ...

I'd like to answer this point by noting it is the same nonsensical bullroar the right wing peddled about Viet Nam.

The only Vietnamese fighting in the US are gang members whose parents were welcomed here at the end of the Viet Nam Fiasco.

'Terrorist,' is just the latest right wing bogeyman. The replacement for, the 'Communists,' under our beds in the 50's. It is a pathetic lying effort to peddle fear in exchange for liberties.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The basic strategy is to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. ...

I'd like to answer this point by noting it is the same nonsensical bullroar the right wing peddled about Viet Nam.

The only Vietnamese fighting in the US are gang members whose parents were welcomed here at the end of the Viet Nam Fiasco.

'Terrorist,' is just the latest right wing bogeyman. The replacement for, the 'Communists,' under our beds in the 50's. It is a pathetic lying effort to peddle fear in exchange for liberties.

Oh yes - so we all must've been dreaming the

WTC attacks

Pentagon Attacks

London Tube Bombings

Bali Nightclub bombings

Madrid Transit Bombings

Buenes Aires Bombings

Salmon Rishdie Fatwa

Declartion by Iran that Israel must be "wiped of the map"

Beheading of Nick Berg

But one thing I've noticed - since kicking ass in the Mid East, terrorist attacks against the US have been quashed!!! Great job by GW Bush - fighting the bastards over there is a great strategy.

[Guthrie]

... , terrorist attacks against the US have been quashed! ...

This, of course, is not true.

The truth is, since the invasion of Iraq, terrorism throughout the world has more than quintupled.

and maybe you missed this one, it was in this morning's paper

W Post

U.S. Investigates Greece Embassy Attack

...

Greek authorities have said the attack was probably carried out by a domestic terrorist group

...

[JerrySeinfeld]

The basic strategy is to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. ...

I'd like to answer this point by noting it is the same nonsensical bullroar the right wing peddled about Viet Nam.

The only Vietnamese fighting in the US are gang members whose parents were welcomed here at the end of the Viet Nam Fiasco.

'Terrorist,' is just the latest right wing bogeyman. The replacement for, the 'Communists,' under our beds in the 50's. It is a pathetic lying effort to peddle fear in exchange for liberties.

No. Being "bogged down" and "quagmire" are the latest left wing fodder in an irrational hatred for GW Bush.

Iraq and Vietnam have very little in common. Other than the fact that America doesn't have a war attention span much longer than about two years.

[Guthrie]

Iraq and Vietnam have way too much in common -- not just the right wing rhetoric, which is almost EXACTLY the same, but both are wars where nobody on either side really wants us there, there was in Vietnam, no way to win - just like there is no way to win in Iraq -

The largest difference thus far is medical care of casualties in Iraq has cut the death rate dramatically --- and increased the disabled rate by that same number. The other difference is, veterans of Vietnam were unhappy with the VA medical treatment they got but it was 3 times better than what current vets get.

certainly, I understand the rush to dismiss any comparison between the two wars, vietnam looks just so much more reasonable by comparison