KrustyKidd

Two dimensional thinking and totally ignores the foundatinal reasons why Al Queda exists. Al Queda or, a movement with the same core rationale, belif and mission would have come forth under another name or leader at some point. The above was only the manifestatin it appeared in, not the reason.

I'll bet fifty at least. Al Queda's rise is not coincidental, it's been brewing for eight hundred years. It's a political/religious and military movement with a core belief of their way or the highway. Very deep rooted in Muslim phsyce in one way or another. To an impovershed person without hope of a future, it is an ideal alternative if you have a religious disposition, hence, it cannot be fought simply by wiping out the 'wack a moles' when they come out, the base conditions also have to wiped out. Which is a quandry as in order to do that, you have to change the backwards political systems that cannot cope with the 21st cnetury. All the while they are trying to destroy what there is of it already. Ya. Means they cannot work only with foreign affairs and other militarys. They have to be more involved in the inner workings of the governments of the places they are in and, civillian workings at home. Quite the shift from the Patton type of operations they used to prepare for. The US military is a large organization. And, large entities don't turn on a dime. An interesting note is that the US would be happier simply doing what they do best and investing and getting returns and profits for those investments while benifitting the places they invested in. Here, as in many cases, they have invested and now try to protect those investments and, those whom they supported so they do not fall to this new threat. However, as they go about protecting their investments, they create new investments. A fact definitely not lost on the great powers such as France, Germany, Russia and China as they see the US grow more influencial and themselves more redundent. It's a Catch 22 in that they are willing to take on this threat and feel it necessary for the safeguarding of freedom but in order to do so, they have to create more vulnerable assets. Along with the mistaken or possibly not mistaken intent of creating more hedgemoney and resentment around the world towards them. A valid example is 1979 prior to the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan. The US, by it's support for various countries and Nato alliances virtually surrounded the USSR from the North, West and South. In the Middle East, they surrounded Saoudi Arabia with fleets, bases and allies in half a dozen countries. Unintentional hegemony. But, hegmoney none the less as the countries of the region knew who they wanted to be an ally of when the chips were down.

Now, to your point. Yes it is every nation's right. And, might makes right in many cases as does being right in the moral and legal sense. So, if a nation has legal or moral grounds, has approval for action (or no strong opposition) then they could possibly use that might without fear of reprisals from other nations. In that event, they had best be mightier than whom they are attacking and be sure the defenders have no strong friends. In this case, I would assume that unless another nation has provoked Iran to respond (ie: invaded land which is theirs) then they would have a tough sell job at the UN and may find themselves getting ganged up on by a few of the Gulf states as well as the USA with the royal asskicking and rioting in the streets for regime change that I spoke of in the above post. How does this tie in with Korea? Easy. Unless there is a UN resolution that allows them to build weapons then they would be in flagrent violation of the existing laws. And, open to all sorts of action pre- emtive or emptive, whatever you want to call it today. Do they have lots of friends with military capability and a military that can move without fear of reprisals and opening themselves up to a counter attack? Sure they can hurt South Korea, but at the cost of their own country. Hence, to hold onto power, the leadership cannot attack, yet, they can rattle sabres and threaten they will make a bomb but, we all know they never will attain that and so do they. Hence, it is all political. When the talking stops, the bombs start to fall. Remember that Gerry.

Gerry, my kid sister could hurt the US or it's allies. The point is, how much, and at what cost? The price they would pay and the minor damage they would invoke doesn't add up in any bizzarro scenario. No ground held, a destroyed military, their defensive capability degraded dramaticaly by superior air power with their troops exposed and a demoralized public rioting in the streets for regime change. Doesn't add up. Oh, but they will hurt somebody I'm sure. At an overall loss rate of twenty to one.

It means if they leave home they are in big trouble. Ancient equipment and a substandard supply capability. Their forces are capable of effective defense against a similarily depleted military only. Stratfor Assesment

Itr is a fact Israel is more powerful. And, they will not become less powerful. And, they will continue to respond to attacks by Palestinians as they do. Nobody can expect them to do otherwise. We can however, expect Palestinains to get their act together and negotiate in good faith as that is the only variable in the whole equation. Got news for you and the rest of the people who thnk that way Lonius. Israel doesn't care what you think. They are doing whatever they can to protect their people, just as any good government should do. All considerations secondary. I do remember one government taking a lot of flak over concessions to the Palestinians. Hamas didn't like that one though and returned to their default postiion of suicide bombings. As I stated, one variable. Deal with it fair or not.

Gerry, do some mild research on Iran's militay capability. They cannot mount scale sustaining offensive operations beyond their borders. It's not bravado, it's realism.

You did refer to a half century ago though when you gave the example of an ethnic group being promised land which the peole of Toronto were supposed to leave in order to give. My point is that the facts are the facts, and nobody is going anyhere. Hence to say that they owned this or had the right to that is meaningless as the situation is what lies on the ground in the present. I don't recall any Israeli organization other than fringe calling for the extermination and killing of Palestinians. I think you say the rest here pretty good. So, Israel is wrong to vet out those who kill civillians and are wrong for doing so. Got it.

No.

Freedom and democracy are not the end but rather the tool being used to slow and hopefully stop conservative Wahhabisim. As for the other point, I think I addressed your control issue here.

Took your advice and scanned with a new program. Found the bugger. Now can watch in peace. Tks.

Premtive attack with what? Guys like Al Queda who are already trying their best? This is same rhetoric as the Iranian nuke talk, designed for idot's consumption as an attention grabber for the world press. They have squat, know they won't be allowed squat but still have to make their squeaky wheel squeak or be left behind in the 21st century. Their alternative is to change and become part of the modern world which their leaders don't want, hence, the bogus rhetoric that they all know means nothing. I hate to ask you to move up beyond name calling and your leader Michael Moore's rhetoric but, you have to in order to understand. When was the last time you saw a defeated leader allowed to speak publically on any subject and be held in esteem as a head of state? Such is the goings on in Iran as the old, more moderate leader is given podium time in order to appoligise for the new 'hothead.' It's called good cop bad cop and works very well on the untrained masses both local and international. What it does is draw attention to the problems they have and the 'squeaky wheel' but then difusses the nutbar who got the attention in the first place letting the world know that Iran can be dealt with. The back door channels are wide open in Iran's case so, they all know where they stand in Tehran and Washington. It's just the rest of the world that only gets their news from the press that are left in the dark about what is really going on. What's going on? Easy - fear of a sucessful Iraq making them look bad and affecting the Mullahs hold on power over an ever increasing intellectual society. Simple, and realistic. The Communists in the Soviet Union did everything in their power to thwart the modern world as well. Truely, they are in a tough spot but, time is against them. In North Korea's case it's the same - holding onto power in a modern world where they are being left behind. They want freebees galore. Do you think for a second that without nuclear brinkmanship anybody would even talk to these people? The have squat to offer and their economy is in shambles and their human rights record is terrible. Nobody wants anything they have so, you have to play the cards you're left with which is the fear of nuclear aquisition. The US, Israel, Japan, China etc is not going to allow rougue states to have nuclear weapons so it doesn't even enter into any realistic equation as a factor. In fact, it's a given they will never attain that. It's just how far, short of attack will the world go to make sure they do not? First there is no. Then there is an argument. Then there is 'we're going to anyhow' and then talks begin. If you talk right and threaten here and say you have this and that at strategic times, then you can play the reward part out a bit before the talks close down and a flat out punishment regime is instituted. That is the poker game in play right now. Once they cross a certain line, then they get no goodies but prior to that, their mssion is to maximize the rewards without entering the punitive zone. As for invasion of either country - forget it. Bombing of the facilities where the stuff is being used and whatever, a given. Missile delivery systems - gone. Like, they won't even bother building anything on a scale to deliver. Sure, they will plan and make facilities to play the hand out but if the uranium comes and they have delivery systems, they'll lose both hence, they will do the show to whatever degree they need to get the responses they need. Rhetoric and sword rattling - a given. Iran just finished 'Holy Phrophet' where they dragged out their new weapons ( a flying plane that is actually a hovercraft) to show how they are powerful but, as I stated before, Oman or any of a number of local states has them outclassed technology wise and the Fith Fleet can out gun anything the Iranians can move. So, whatever they have conventionally stays at home or is lost. So, it seems, they can rattle their swords all they want, without effect. Their concentration is in Iraq and at home. While they may be able to influence to a small degree what happens in Iraq through various means including negotiations with the US and Iraqi government, home is where the attention lies. And, no matter how they pull out of this problem, there will always be a modern world moving in on them. Same with North korea.

In tactical matters such as resources like troops numbers, equipment and firepower for sure as they are there on the ground doing the job and know best, much like an elevator repair guy knows which size wrench he needs while his office ten miles away is setting up his next job. To not give this guy the tools he needs to do the job makes the whole operation pretty messed up and redundent. In Iraq, it is the same with the added bonus (or complication) of the political portion on the ground being left to the the politicians and the CIA while the overall strategic is left to the higher echelons of the defense and foreign affairs departments which are both riddled with senior generals and politicians alike. Hope that helps. Oh, BTW,

That is a good site! I won't be going back though as the pop ups made me sick though and I have some pretty good ware. Anyhow, people are not tuned the way most of us are so it's understandable. The same guys and galls that couldn't find Iran (Australia ) can probably make our heads swim in their area of expertise be it sportscalling or auto mechanics. And, probably laugh when they see a politician not knowing what a particular piece of equipment is called. As for Bush I can also see where being on his tenth interview of the day getting toungue tied here and there and warrent that is not the norm as he seems to come off pretty good when explaining to the debating reff that the coalition is larger than portrayed. In fact, he could not ( due to reasons of privacy and secrecy) state how large the coalition actually was (over 90 nations) because most of them did not want to be seen as publically for the war as much of their business and anti war groups were against it. If you know those guys let them know that the pop ups are degenerating their site so I won't be passing the links on though. And thanks for the laughs!

It is not the optimum situation for anybody but, these are times where the enemy communicates using our systems and, in order to be protected from them, we need to grant special powers. There are checks and balances in place through the constitustion whereby grandfoather clauses and such make these laws come up for revision or cancellation and, that with term governments makes it a fairly begnign system. If you will note, during times of national emergency many laws have been put into place and then quietly been anulled afterwards. As for too much power in one person's hands, I do believe that prior to being elected (for two terms) this particular president was placed under the microscope more than once so it's not like the US elected a complete stranger. I know that you mean in ANY PERSON'S hands and in that, I agree but, in time of war and, we are at war with a non physical social disease that has an agenda, rationale and the fair possibility of making it work even if most don't see it.

We are not them. You work with the premise that this can continually go back a half centurey when the here and now reality is that there are millions of people who need to live together as none of them are moving. So, historical references to British and biblical times are not going to work in any way shape or form. No, afraid you have that a bit skewed. Hamas likes to position their operations in civiliian facilities so they will get the added protection of using people as a shield. There are enogh legitimate targets that israel does not need to do as you have said and, while mistakes are made, they are no 100% hit on civillians like the PLO and their Hamas buddies continually do.

Watched Cretien do it for years. Pretty normal and SOP for any government I think. I personally don't see what the big deal is, like she was already compromised ten years ago and was unfit to operate as a true undercover operative and, her husband seemed to be actively working against the Adminsitration (right or wrong youdon't do that when holding a position) so, what's the big deal? If this were an evil administration they would have planted evidence to throw him in jail and have him taken out of service.

I imagine they are very confusing to people who only have one point such as yourself but being on a board where you are supposed to discuss reasons and ramifications of politics they are not. At least to the normal person. Do try to elevate your discussional technique and base knowledge from; You: Bush Sucks. End of discussion to; Allowing facts and counter arguments to enter your mental realm. As I stated before Gerry, if you can't respond and participate in intellectual debating, try a blog and set the 'allow reply' option to 'no.' You will find a much more enjoyable life I think given the limited abilty to debate that you have displayed. The small fraction that have a phsycotic affliction with the man and can't stop posting about him I suppose, but, the majority who voted for him do not. I guess that common sense can be viewed by some as a 'cult.' and those would see reality as a hopless expanse of territory they are too afrraid to explore. of the people at a Dean, Moore, Sheehan, Gore, anti war, anti Bush, anti government types These people actually believe Bush is worse than Hitler. Funny, Hitler whipped his people up by using minorities while Bush is trying to save Jews and minorities and is even accused of being pro Jewish and even owned by the Jews. Crackpots huh?

That's OK. I just wanted to stump you a bit in public. You answer everything else with the same Bush schtick so I knew there was a reason why these were not addressed. Anyhow, why is it the Left were willing to give Saddam a decade and more when he didn't do a thing to adhere to the rule of the world and Iraqis by you and your ilk's measure should only get three years when they have made so much progress?

Scince the war, the following has occured. IRAQI OIL SHIPMENTS AND CONTRACTS Iraqi Oil If oil is going only to the USA or mainly, why would the UN be giving Iraq immunity from legal proceedings such as debt collection from their LOL 'non existent (because the USA is stealing the oil) oil revenues?' Read below and report back prior to your next unfactual, yet highly opinionated post. If the oil is going only to the USA or the revenues are, then you had best warn the UN that they are being hoodwinked and the money is going to Bush. Also, why are the Iaqis not mentioning this problem? Why are none of the governments of Russia, China, France and such mentioning that they are not getting enough Iraqi oil? Answer, because you are wrong, they are all there. Buying Iraqi oil at world prices. Their companies setting up wells using Iraqi labor, and, paying for that labor at the going rate. Ya ya ya. Old standard argument that has big holes in it. A base factor is that only one country in the world uses gold to back it's currency - Switzerland. Hence, the US is not alone by any means. First, while adventageous to the US to have it's currency being used to trade, it is not impertive. And, they can do without. Second, there is no way to cause hardship to the US by making this move. To do so suddenly is financial suicide given the size of the US economy. US dollar goes down because of runs at the bank, the savings of every country on earth goes down with it. This in turn causes backrupt governmnets and they deffault in payments to places like France, Spain etc causing them to endure hardships. Next, you try to turn in your dollars faster but, nobody is buying them. To cover what they can, the US turns in their Euros, pesos or whatever causing runs at banks all over the world. Between economies going broke all over the world, the entire planets currency exchanges in a convulsion and collectively headed down the tubes, I would imagine that prior to any major shift there will be checks and balances in place. Now, I have a question for you. What income amount does the US make yearly for having this commodity sold in their currency? And, if it is traded in Euros (after a ten year adjustment period) with the US shifting investments to the Euro to balance this out, what will they make then?

I don't really expect you to reply as you didn't before which is indicative of somebody who has no answer. Yet, would like to once again, give you the opportunity. In fact, one of them you asked me to give my opinion directly and then just walked away from it. Here. Five and a half years and nothing. Yes, so obviously dishonest. Get an argument for crying out loud, this baseless conjecture and emotional drivel makes you look like a troll poster. Wait, why don't you just address the ones of mine you have conveiniently skipped over? There's this one What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war? Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant. It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could. I suppose that Saddam being in violation of resolutions and such and thus becomming a legitimate target for active regime change would then be the recipient of said support. After a decade of trying, the US was forced to act in order to get Iraq to comply. Of course it can be argued ineffectively they did not have to act as nobody has to do anything. They could stand down the forces they had in theater and allow him to do whatever he wanted or, simply become isolationist and allow the world to go on with whatever it does when controlled by Great Powers such as France, Russia and China and an Iraq with Saddam unrestricted.. Oh, I get it. You meant in case Hondorus effected the regime change the US should have provided moral support in the form of the USO or something. Ok, gotcha. And this one which was a tag along with Monty affair you didn't address which had some points which challenged your argument And then of course, you never once commented in any way to my speculation of what would happen if the US left Iraq. You can go here to do so. You were the one who said Iraq would be much better off if the US left Iraq so it should be interesting to see you refute any of the possibilities with reason. Oh, another argument maybe you can answer what Black Dog could not I think this all ties in with the 72% thread and your last post there so won't bother addressing it unless you wish but, the points are here anyhow.

What about the fact that most of the oil goes to Europe and that most of the oil companies are non US? (France, China, Russia etc) Won't they be somwhat miffed at being controlled? And, isn't oil a commodity that can be bought and sold by virtually anybody - and is? Leaving only money to be the controlling factor as everybody that can sells it? And, isn't the price of oil set by a worldwide cartel which in turn does factoring of supply, demand and future forcasting to set those prices? So, wondering, what exactly the US would 'control' that it does not already control. Iran can only do so much in Iraq and, they have pretty much reached that point. Iraqi Shiites are iraqi, not Iranian and thus, don't wish to become part of Iran. The fact that Iran wishes to hold popen talks is an indication they have reached their crest on that point. As for sinking ships and closing the Straights, not a chance. The fifth fleet has more fire power than Iran does, not to mention SAudi Arabia, Oman Quatar and the UAE.

Based on what scientific evidence? And, sexual (and what orientation) or control? And what are the telling signs that lead you to this conclusions other than just flipping out words? What are the telltale earmarks please. Guessing that you are just wandering with words rather than having something more substancial to base this strong observation on, I have some light reading for you to use as a reference in making your profile of Bush the serial killer. Which is it and why? Can you enlighten us on the event please? Can you provide the events that were relevent here please? Or is it disease? More reference to help. Would this be his method? Would he be disorganized and asocial or organized and nonsocial? Which of the following would he be and why? There's lots more but you have some proof to supply so will wait for that. It is. And I did not insult her/him, rather an entire loose genre of people who flip out wild and ridiculous assertations without proof. In absence of any scientific proof, I believe those who perscribe to this emotional play can be grouped in certain catagories (unless of course there is scientific evidence for this ridiculoua asertation in which case, people that perscribe to this belief of GW being a serial killer can fairly be classed as intellectuals) This evidence was not supplied and, more than likely will not be supplied hence, people without evidence that make wild accusations can seek the proper support group under their applicable catagory reguardless of who they are. Hence, some without proof are blowhards, others, morons, some can be childish and others just emotional wishers. Nocrap, Gerry and yourself I imagine have proof and scientific as well as phsycological evidence galore to supply to back your point up so naturally would not fit into any of the basic idiot or morn catagories. But rather the intellectual ones (once proof has been supplied of course.)

When are you going to respond to the points I countered last week? Or is throwing an insult out at Bush the only stuff you have up your sleeve. It is said that if some on the Left did not have the ability to insult, they would be left with no argument. Or, in this case, reduced to using a cartoon for lack of same.

Bush does have a cult like following it seems - on the looney left.