Bush says Iran is source of Deadly Bombs

[Charles Anthony]

Gorje Buch can you know what to my you know what

reported

[jbg]

Reported as well.

[Canadian Blue]

I can't believe that Baylee, keeps on going with this childish behavior.

Reported.

[jbg]

I can't believe that Baylee, keeps on going with this childish behavior.

Reported.

Who is "Baylee"? Someone from before my time?

[Canadian Blue]

You should know him, he was the one that called all police officer pigs, said our soldiers are murderers, and is completely irrational.

[White Doors]

The whole "Clash of Civilizations" theory is a BS one. I'm sure that even in middle eastern countries people have individual attributes and ideas like anyone else. As well wouldn't we be better off winning the clash of civilization's through diplomacy and containment instead of direct military action. From what I understand the Iranian youth support reform, so instead of shooting bombs at them, why don't we bring about a policy to deal with Iran diplomatically.

Bush had pretty well the entire world supporting the USA, until he f%$ked it all up with Iraq, the US could have made a huge impact on democracy by using diplomacy. But instead they went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence, and now most of the world is just pissed off at the US.

But you are forgeting demographics. You are missing the big picture.

[jbg]

The whole "Clash of Civilizations" theory is a BS one. I'm sure that even in middle eastern countries people have individual attributes and ideas like anyone else. As well wouldn't we be better off winning the clash of civilization's through diplomacy and containment instead of direct military action. From what I understand the Iranian youth support reform, so instead of shooting bombs at them, why don't we bring about a policy to deal with Iran diplomatically.

So do we go straight to the universities and start negotiating directly with "Iranian youths"? Can those yet to be identified "youths" restrain their politicians and clerics?

Bush had pretty well the entire world supporting the USA, until he f%$ked it all up with Iraq, the US could have made a huge impact on democracy by using diplomacy. But instead they went into Iraq based on faulty intelligence, and now most of the world is just pissed off at the US.

When we were, momentarily, victims everyone supported us. When we, consistent with our national character, decided to actually do something, we became less warm and cuddly and the support fell away. I'd rather be alive and respected than dead and loved. As my signature says "if it's us or them, I choose 'us'".

[Catchme]

Playing the victim while victimizing.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/01/con05013.html

[jbg]

Playing the victim while victimizing.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/01/con05013.html

I took the trouble to read that link. You're going to tell me that the ad about "the army, in the streets, of your cities, in Canada" wasn't more misleading than any of those described tactics. All of those, at least, involved emphasizing, maybe over-emphasizing, some aspect of the truth.

[PolyNewbie]

jbg: You're going to tell me that the ad about "the army, in the streets, of your cities, in Canada" wasn't more misleading than any of those described tactics.

Ottawa Citizen: The Harper government plans to increase the Canadian Forces presence across the country with new units in 14 cities as well as shifting 5,000 regular force personnel from support and desk jobs to training and front-line missions.

Between now and 2016, the army will establish "territorial response battalions" in Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Niagara-Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint John, Halifax and St. John's. The units would be designed to react to domestic emergencies such as natural disasters or a terrorist attack.

....

Ottawa Citizen Feb 2007

[jbg]

Ottawa Citizen Feb 2007

From that link:

The units would be designed to react to domestic emergencies such as natural disasters or a terrorist attack.

[Canadian Blue]

When we were, momentarily, victims everyone supported us. When we, consistent with our national character, decided to actually do something, we became less warm and cuddly and the support fell away. I'd rather be alive and respected than dead and loved. As my signature says "if it's us or them, I choose 'us'".

How was Iraq consistent with your national character. That mission was disasterous for the United States and its relationship with the world. I also believe that the best way to deal with terrorist groups, or any form of terrorism is through diplomacy. Look at the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland as an example of that.

The current issue of Harpers magazine, has a great article on Islamic democratic groups in the middle east right now.

[jbg]

When we were, momentarily, victims everyone supported us. When we, consistent with our national character, decided to actually do something, we became less warm and cuddly and the support fell away. I'd rather be alive and respected than dead and loved. As my signature says "if it's us or them, I choose 'us'".

How was Iraq consistent with your national character. That mission was disasterous for the United States and its relationship with the world. I also believe that the best way to deal with terrorist groups, or any form of terrorism is through diplomacy. Look at the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland as an example of that.

The difference between the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland and Islamists is that the former has limited objectives, i.e. ouster of what they see as imported Protestants from the UK. Ireland itself is a pluralist democracy. Dublin had a Jewish mayor for many years, and whether the IRA wins or loses, neither the Catholics nor Protestants are in danger of loss of life or even persecution. The Islamists conduct at the Kenya and Tanzania embassies, on September 11, 2001, March 11, 2004 (Madrid) and July 11, 2005 (London) says it all. The IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland generally give warning of attacks, to minimize loss of life; the Islamists seek maximum loss of life.

The current issue of Harpers magazine, has a great article on Islamic democratic groups in the middle east right now.

I read the excerpt available on line. Frankly, if the Islamic people vote in terrorist groups, any last excuse for not taking civilian casualties in fighting Islamism will be gone.

The "explanation" of so-called "political parties" having military wings is unconvincing. They point to Israel as the reason. If this is the case, what sense is there in Israel negotiating with any government, if the country is full of armed forces not bound by any treaty?

[Figleaf]

Black Dog

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

Yeah! If they killed all the women and children of the fighting sectarian sects in all sectors of Iraq, the single sex sectartians surviving would die off in a single generation. Then Iraq would be free.

[jbg]

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

Same here. WW II was only won once we began such offensives as Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Trust me, the Japanese were not scared of our island-hopping offensive. They took such massive casualties in such US "victories" as Iwo Jima that both the American people and financial markets would not have stood for further, ditsy, slow-motion war.

[Canadian Blue]

Al Queida attacked us on 9/11, Al Queida was freely operating out of Afghanistan.

The Taliban (based in Afghanistan) attacked an killed 2800 on 9-11. Now the American et al have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq; only an order in magnitude less than died during the Holocaust.

And for what? Oil? You fucking Conservatives are fucking hypocrites. I hope every fucking one of you gets tooth decay. The world needs leadership and Canada can't provide it because 36% of us don't mind killing children on the other side of the world. Canada needs sound economics and we've had nothing but queer-onomics since Jan/06.

I was about to respond to jbg's post, but then I saw this pile of hogwash, and realized how much you bring the forum down in quality.

Same here. WW II was only won once we began such offensives as Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Trust me, the Japanese were not scared of our island-hopping offensive. They took such massive casualties in such US "victories" as Iwo Jima that both the American people and financial markets would not have stood for further, ditsy, slow-motion war.

Dresden didn't really help out our cause much, and even if it didn't happen I'm sure we would have been able to defeat Germany with about as much effort. As for the Japanese, I think they would have been willing to negotiate, I don't think nuclear bombs were needed. The American's pretty well firebombed all of their cities to shit anyways.

[jbg]

Dresden didn't really help out our cause much, and even if it didn't happen I'm sure we would have been able to defeat Germany with about as much effort. As for the Japanese, I think they would have been willing to negotiate, I don't think nuclear bombs were needed. The American's pretty well firebombed all of their cities to shit anyways.

Dresden did demoralize the German people. Even in a dictatorship, the people (especially in countries where most people are educated) need a modicum of confidence in their leaders, and where they are being taken. An even like Dresden would hatter that.

As for the Japanese, you and I, frankly, disagree about the utility of bargaining with fanatics. They were not prepared, IMHO, to yield what they started the Pacific part of the war for; to break their physical isolation and dependency.

[Black Dog]

Same here. WW II was only won once we began such offensives as Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Trust me, the Japanese were not scared of our island-hopping offensive. They took such massive casualties in such US "victories" as Iwo Jima that both the American people and financial markets would not have stood for further, ditsy, slow-motion war.

Not that horseshit again. JBG: you have admitted that "it is impossible to prove with historical certainty what happened..." to break the backs of the respective Axis forces. Your argument is, to be generous, unconvincing. And your new insight (no doubt gleaned from a recent viewing of "Flags of Our Fathers") doesn't make your case stronger. It was not the breakdown of civilian morale that did in Germany and Japan: neither regime seemed to care about sacrificing civilians. In Germany's case it was the actual destruction of the regime which resulted from the successive defeats of the military on the battlefield: in Japan's case it was the threat of destruction made real by the advent of the nuclear bomb.

Another question: if you had your way, who would we be massacring?

[jbg]

(no doubt gleaned from a recent viewing of "Flags of Our Fathers")

I saw that a while ago. Quite good. It is obvious that we were sustaining casualties at an unsustainable rate.

Another question: if you had your way, who would we be massacring?

Imams and "educators" at madrassas would be a good place to start, and hopefully finish. People who infuse hate in this manner are worse than child abusers and pedophiles. They also make the earth a much worse place for their presence.

[Black Dog]

Imams and "educators" at madrassas would be a good place to start, and hopefully finish. People who infuse hate in this manner are worse than child abusers and pedophiles. They also make the earth a much worse place for their presence.

Nice dodge, chumly. But "targeted assasinations" is not the course of action you were advocating a few posts ago when you concured with the idea that the U.S. needs to "take the gloves off and get down to business."

Same here. WW II was only won once we began such offensives as Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

That sure sounds like your pushing for wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter to me. I mean, one doesn't trot Dresden and Hiroshima out when making a point about a limited, carefully targeted response.

So I'll ask again: who are we supposed to be slaughtering?

[jbg]

Imams and "educators" at madrassas would be a good place to start, and hopefully finish. People who infuse hate in this manner are worse than child abusers and pedophiles. They also make the earth a much worse place for their presence.

Nice dodge, chumly. But "targeted assasinations" is not the course of action you were advocating a few posts ago when you concured with the idea that the U.S. needs to "take the gloves off and get down to business."

Same here. WW II was only won once we began such offensives as Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

That sure sounds like your pushing for wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter to me. I mean, one doesn't trot Dresden and Hiroshima out when making a point about a limited, carefully targeted response.

So I'll ask again: who are we supposed to be slaughtering?

I said "hopefully finish". I'd prefer to do the job without much loss of innocent life. But if taking out Imams and madrassas mean bombing mosques, hopefully when not full of innocent worshipers, so be it.

[Black Dog]

I said "hopefully finish". I'd prefer to do the job without much loss of innocent life. But if taking out Imams and madrassas mean bombing mosques, hopefully when not full of innocent worshipers, so be it.

Okay, I think I'll file this under "T" for "Totally Fucking Disingeneous." Look, you're the one who brought up the indiscriminate, wholesale and (this is important) intentional targetting of civilian population centres in World War 2 (and not, as I've shown, for the first time). What's more, you speak of these events in more or less favourable terms; in your view, these steps were necessary to break the enemy and win the war. The inescapable conclusion from that and other comments is that a similar "gloves off" approach is neccesary to win the war on Islamic terrorism. Now, there is absolutely no parrallel between Dresden and Hiroshima and whacking a few mullahs, Tony Soprano style. So what are you really advocating here? If you don't support intentionally targetting civilians to break their will, why cite the examples you did? If you do, well, man up and say so. And maybe tell me what cities you want to dust first.

Is it that you're too chickenshit to actually follow the logic train to its next stop at Slaughterville (plausible deniability and all that: "Look, I never said we should firebomb or nuke civilian population centres in the Islamic world...but we've had success firebombing and nuking people before...hey, look over there!")? Or maybe you're just riffin' and not really thinking this through? If that's the case, I'm not sure what purpose idle speculation about the utility of applying lessons World War 2 to the war on terror is supposed to serve. Certainly a self-professed "liberal" like yourself would never advocate all-out war which would, by definition, entail killing a whole lot of innocent people, right? So maybe the Dresden thing was just a slip of the tounge, right?

Oh. Shit.

Since the Arabs appear to be in little or no mood to stop fighting, the stutter-stop war, i.e. attacks followed by phony negotations (i.e. negotiations where the Arabs are not negotiating in good faith) may need to be replaced by all-out war.

[Black Dog]

jbg

*crickets*

[JerrySeinfeld]

I said "hopefully finish". I'd prefer to do the job without much loss of innocent life. But if taking out Imams and madrassas mean bombing mosques, hopefully when not full of innocent worshipers, so be it.

Okay, I think I'll file this under "T" for "Totally Fucking Disingeneous." Look, you're the one who brought up the indiscriminate, wholesale and (this is important) intentional targetting of civilian population centres in World War 2 (and not, as I've shown, for the first time). What's more, you speak of these events in more or less favourable terms; in your view, these steps were necessary to break the enemy and win the war. The inescapable conclusion from that and other comments is that a similar "gloves off" approach is neccesary to win the war on Islamic terrorism. Now, there is absolutely no parrallel between Dresden and Hiroshima and whacking a few mullahs, Tony Soprano style. So what are you really advocating here? If you don't support intentionally targetting civilians to break their will, why cite the examples you did? If you do, well, man up and say so. And maybe tell me what cities you want to dust first.

Is it that you're too chickenshit to actually follow the logic train to its next stop at Slaughterville (plausible deniability and all that: "Look, I never said we should firebomb or nuke civilian population centres in the Islamic world...but we've had success firebombing and nuking people before...hey, look over there!")? Or maybe you're just riffin' and not really thinking this through? If that's the case, I'm not sure what purpose idle speculation about the utility of applying lessons World War 2 to the war on terror is supposed to serve. Certainly a self-professed "liberal" like yourself would never advocate all-out war which would, by definition, entail killing a whole lot of innocent people, right? So maybe the Dresden thing was just a slip of the tounge, right?

Oh. Shit.

Since the Arabs appear to be in little or no mood to stop fighting, the stutter-stop war, i.e. attacks followed by phony negotations (i.e. negotiations where the Arabs are not negotiating in good faith) may need to be replaced by all-out war.

See? This all goes back to a topic I started about the merits of the sonofabitch system. I'm not necessarily advocating this, but simply putting forth the idea that perhaps Saddam was just no longer our sonofabitch. Maybe we need more of our own sonofabitches to clamp down on the savages of the mid-east. Most colonial countries of savages who were eventually civilized by the brits (or others) of success weren't just handed their own democratic state. Rather they were punished into submission over time and eventually learned about some of the basic tenets of good government such as independent courts, rule of law, confidential voting etc. It bears serious consideratino to seriously "colonialize" these regions. Take them OVER. Problem is the international community would have a fit, so we should consider installing some badass sonofabitches in there and keep 'em on OUR side this time

[Figleaf]

See? This all goes back to a topic I started about the merits of the sonofabitch system. I'm not necessarily advocating this, but simply putting forth the idea that perhaps Saddam was just no longer our sonofabitch. Maybe we need more of our own sonofabitches to clamp down on the savages of the mid-east. Most colonial countries of savages who were eventually civilized by the brits (or others) of success weren't just handed their own democratic state. Rather they were punished into submission over time and eventually learned about some of the basic tenets of good government such as independent courts, rule of law, confidential voting etc. It bears serious consideratino to seriously "colonialize" these regions. Take them OVER. Problem is the international community would have a fit, so we should consider installing some badass sonofabitches in there and keep 'em on OUR side this time

So basically, you recommend continuing with current practices.