| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dapra" |
| Date: |
23 May 2007 12:27:51 PM |
| Object: |
'Catastrophic Emergency' |
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush; "It
Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
The Bush administration has released a directive called the National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive
released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream
and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron
Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this
directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”
the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure
constitutional government. The language in this directive would in
effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location,
that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or
disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure,
environment, economy, or government functions;
So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide
any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail.
Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or
Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in
time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events.
When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator
in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.
The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t
say that the President will work with the other branches of government
equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says
clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches
that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is
coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every
branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature
making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three
branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the
cooperative effort.
The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative
effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the
Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity
with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper
respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches,
to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is
governed and the capability of all three branches of government to
execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly
succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability
and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic
emergency;
Further on in the document it states the following.
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for
ensuring constitutional government.
This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of
government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be
equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such
an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is
effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all
branches of government what to do.
Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of
Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall
continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security
department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the
Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland
just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that
country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an
emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the
Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.
The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible
for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s
the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures
for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that
centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of
a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.
It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define
procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very
language in the document destroys what a working constitutional
government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government
contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches
and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to
coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a
clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should
be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage
that came from the President.
.
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
16 Jun 2007 12:19:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 01:19:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:03:46 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
The problem is that there are too many black and women voters who will
vote for the candidate who most closely matches their political
opinions.
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
16 Jun 2007 08:12:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
Do you have a problem with reaching across the aisle?
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
16 Jun 2007 08:50:31 PM |
|
|
In article <4h2973lk1ucdm96iaf5l7javi0tp30rj2m@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com mumbled
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
She is a shrewd politician.
She has craved the presidency since the 1970's.
is it a good idea to elect someone who wants something so badly they
will say anything or doo anything to get it ?
Do you have a problem with reaching across the aisle?
Perhaps with some hazmat gloves
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
19 Jun 2007 08:05:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:50:31 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:
She is a shrewd politician.
She has craved the presidency since the 1970's.
is it a good idea to elect someone who wants something so badly they
will say anything or doo anything to get it ?
Like Bush wanting to be a war president?
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 12:38:14 AM |
|
|
In article <v9vg735205jgfudui7fbs5q1jprp8se409@4ax.com>,
governor.swill@gmail.com mumbled
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:50:31 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:
She is a shrewd politician.
She has craved the presidency since the 1970's.
is it a good idea to elect someone who wants something so badly they
will say anything or doo anything to get it ?
Like Bush wanting to be a war president?
You think he wanted a war ?
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 08:42:18 AM |
|
|
On Jun 20, 1:38 am, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
In article <v9vg735205jgfudui7fbs5q1jprp8se...@4ax.com>,
governor.sw...@gmail.com mumbled
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:50:31 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m>
wrote:
She is a shrewd politician.
She has craved the presidency since the 1970's.
is it a good idea to elect someone who wants something so badly they
will say anything or doo anything to get it ?
Like Bush wanting to be a war president?
You think he wanted a war ?
--
All Bush wants is loose shoes, a warm place to ***** and something else
I forget.
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 10:31:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1182346938.869778.130110@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
vithant@gmail.com mumbled
On Jun 20, 1:38 am, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
In article <v9vg735205jgfudui7fbs5q1jprp8se...@4ax.com>,
governor.sw...@gmail.com mumbled
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:50:31 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m>
wrote:
She is a shrewd politician.
She has craved the presidency since the 1970's.
is it a good idea to elect someone who wants something so badly they
will say anything or doo anything to get it ?
Like Bush wanting to be a war president?
You think he wanted a war ?
--
All Bush wants is loose shoes, a warm place to ***** and something else
I forget.
Glad you agree he didn't want a war.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 08:47:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:38:14 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:
Like Bush wanting to be a war president?
You think he wanted a war ?
Yes.
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 08:15:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:47:43 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:38:14 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:
Like Bush wanting to be a war president?
You think he wanted a war ?
Yes.
Sucks to be you.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 08:14:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:05:16 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:50:31 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:
She is a shrewd politician.
She has craved the presidency since the 1970's.
is it a good idea to elect someone who wants something so badly they
will say anything or doo anything to get it ?
Like Bush wanting to be a war president?
No.
George W. Bush was elected to the Presidency on an education agenda.
And up until 9/11 he was pursuing that agenda.
In case you hadn't noticed the world changed that day and as a result
his agenda changed.
Why don't you go and research each candidate's platform for the 2000
elections?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
16 Jun 2007 11:17:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:12:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
I have been watching her actions. And am not impressed.
Can you name _one_ time she has bucked her party?
Personally, I prefer politicians who are willing to stand by their
principles (even if I may disagree with them).
Even still, my personal opinion about her has nothing to do with the
fact that she has no real appeal outside the Democratic party - and
that will be her downfall.
And I am _still_ waiting for the Democratic plan for protecting us
from Muslim extremist terrorism. Can you explain this to me?
Do you have a problem with reaching across the aisle?
Considering that the Democrats are throwing away everything myself and
my comrades have done in Iraq for political gain - how can you ever
expect me to trust them?
BTW - when the make those unfounded accusations of 'war crimes,' they
are slandering my brother who served at Gitmo.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
18 Jun 2007 12:14:38 AM |
|
|
In article <32d973l0ljq4iupc3e3jr7721i492vgbnu@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:12:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
I have been watching her actions. And am not impressed.
Can you name _one_ time she has bucked her party?
Personally, I prefer politicians who are willing to stand by their
principles (even if I may disagree with them).
Even still, my personal opinion about her has nothing to do with the
fact that she has no real appeal outside the Democratic party - and
that will be her downfall.
And I am _still_ waiting for the Democratic plan for protecting us
from Muslim extremist terrorism. Can you explain this to me?
1. End the war in Iraq, removing from the anti-American extremists
their primary recruiting mechanism.
2. End the wars between Israel and the Palestinians, removing their
former primary recruiting tool. At least put some
distance between US policy and Israeli policy.
3. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by promoting greater energy
efficiency and self-sufficiency.
4. Improve border security.
5. Use cooperative agreements and information exchange with
foreign governments to root out terrorist organizations at home
and abroad.
6. Stop the brinksmanship with Iran and Venezuela.
Considering that the Democrats are throwing away everything myself and
my comrades have done in Iraq for political gain - how can you ever
expect me to trust them?
What did you accomplish that was worth the lives of tens of thousands
of innocent people?
.
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
18 Jun 2007 02:37:26 AM |
|
|
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <32d973l0ljq4iupc3e3jr7721i492vgbnu@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:12:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
I have been watching her actions. And am not impressed.
Can you name _one_ time she has bucked her party?
Personally, I prefer politicians who are willing to stand by their
principles (even if I may disagree with them).
Even still, my personal opinion about her has nothing to do with the
fact that she has no real appeal outside the Democratic party - and
that will be her downfall.
And I am _still_ waiting for the Democratic plan for protecting us
from Muslim extremist terrorism. Can you explain this to me?
1. End the war in Iraq, removing from the anti-American extremists
their primary recruiting mechanism.
define "end the war": unilateral pullout? gradual turn over to the Iraqis?
UN peace keepers? BTW: Islam is their primary recruiting mechanism.
2. End the wars between Israel and the Palestinians, removing their
former primary recruiting tool. At least put some
distance between US policy and Israeli policy.
how are you going to end that war? eliminate Israel and the Jewish
population? that *is* the stated goal of the Palestinians....
3. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by promoting greater energy
efficiency and self-sufficiency.
nice buzzwords: wind turbines in every available space? solar arrays
for miles? Nukes? dam every river for hydro? ban private automobiles?
4. Improve border security.
how? which border? how are you going to pay for it?
5. Use cooperative agreements and information exchange with
foreign governments to root out terrorist organizations at home
and abroad.
yes, and history has *so* many instances of such a policy w*rking to the
benefit of all parties.
6. Stop the brinksmanship with Iran and Venezuela.
why? what do we gain from that? what substitute policy do you have
that will protect American interests in those countries and their
regions?
redc1c4,
tossing a cold bucket of reality on another fantasy.... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 12:53:48 AM |
|
|
In article <46763659.CA88075@drunkenbastards.org.ies>,
redc1c4 <redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <32d973l0ljq4iupc3e3jr7721i492vgbnu@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:12:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
I have been watching her actions. And am not impressed.
Can you name _one_ time she has bucked her party?
Personally, I prefer politicians who are willing to stand by their
principles (even if I may disagree with them).
Even still, my personal opinion about her has nothing to do with the
fact that she has no real appeal outside the Democratic party - and
that will be her downfall.
And I am _still_ waiting for the Democratic plan for protecting us
from Muslim extremist terrorism. Can you explain this to me?
1. End the war in Iraq, removing from the anti-American extremists
their primary recruiting mechanism.
define "end the war": unilateral pullout? gradual turn over to the Iraqis?
UN peace keepers?
Why not? It was a unilateral invasion.
BTW: Islam is their primary recruiting mechanism.
That's why the Albanians and Bosnians hate America, right?
2. End the wars between Israel and the Palestinians, removing their
former primary recruiting tool. At least put some
distance between US policy and Israeli policy.
how are you going to end that war? eliminate Israel and the Jewish
population? that *is* the stated goal of the Palestinians....
It's a goal of the most extreme factions. Most Palestinians recognize
that's not possible. Most Palestians would settle for the West Bank,
Gaza and perpetually guaranteed access to Jerusalem, access to the lands
they own in and out of Israel, and removal of Israeli settlements in the
West Bank.
3. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by promoting greater energy
efficiency and self-sufficiency.
nice buzzwords: wind turbines in every available space? solar arrays
for miles? Nukes? dam every river for hydro? ban private automobiles?
Increase fuel efficiency for cars, research into new fuel sources,
increased deployment of wind farms and solar arrays are all supported
by most Democrats. Additionally, I think nuclear power is an
indispensible part of any long-term energy strategy.
4. Improve border security.
how? which border? how are you going to pay for it?
All of them, as well as the ports. Port security can be
paid for by docking fees and entry fees. The land borders are
going to have to come out of general tax revenues.
5. Use cooperative agreements and information exchange with
foreign governments to root out terrorist organizations at home
and abroad.
yes, and history has *so* many instances of such a policy w*rking to the
benefit of all parties.
Less so since Bush was elected. But fighting international criminal
gangs such as Al Qaeda is in almost everyone's interest, don't you think?
6. Stop the brinksmanship with Iran and Venezuela.
why? what do we gain from that?
Lower oil prices, less wasted resources, long term prospects of
cooperation on terrorism. More peace in the world.
what substitute policy do you have
that will protect American interests in those countries and their
regions?
Play nice or we'll boycott your goods. Anything beyond that is
unwarranted interference in the affairs of other countries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
20 Jun 2007 02:41:11 AM |
|
|
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <46763659.CA88075@drunkenbastards.org.ies>,
redc1c4 <redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <32d973l0ljq4iupc3e3jr7721i492vgbnu@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:12:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
I have been watching her actions. And am not impressed.
Can you name _one_ time she has bucked her party?
Personally, I prefer politicians who are willing to stand by their
principles (even if I may disagree with them).
Even still, my personal opinion about her has nothing to do with the
fact that she has no real appeal outside the Democratic party - and
that will be her downfall.
And I am _still_ waiting for the Democratic plan for protecting us
from Muslim extremist terrorism. Can you explain this to me?
1. End the war in Iraq, removing from the anti-American extremists
their primary recruiting mechanism.
define "end the war": unilateral pullout? gradual turn over to the Iraqis?
UN peace keepers?
Why not? It was a unilateral invasion.
not true, and how is a unilateral pullout, which will be perceived
(and rightly so) as a defeat of the US by the forces of Islamofascisim
a benefit to the US, it's place in the world, our interests and the long
term safety of this country and her citizens?
BTW: Islam is their primary recruiting mechanism.
That's why the Albanians and Bosnians hate America, right?
it's not surprising that you know little of the make up of those countries,
or why we may have some popularity there for the moment. why should things
be
the same in other countries, especially where the underlying cultures,
population makeup, history, and geographical locations are different?
what percentage of Bosnians are Muslim? what percentage of Albanians
would be Muslims if we hadn't stopped the fighting?
did you know that Albania has been sending troops to OEF/OIF?
what w*rks one place is unlikely to w*rk in another.
2. End the wars between Israel and the Palestinians, removing their
former primary recruiting tool. At least put some
distance between US policy and Israeli policy.
how are you going to end that war? eliminate Israel and the Jewish
population? that *is* the stated goal of the Palestinians....
It's a goal of the most extreme factions. Most Palestinians recognize
that's not possible. Most Palestians would settle for the West Bank,
Gaza and perpetually guaranteed access to Jerusalem, access to the lands
they own in and out of Israel, and removal of Israeli settlements in the
West Bank.
i've yet to see anyone announce this as policy. they don't even refer to
Israel as Israel. in deciding between deeds and words, i'll trust deeds.
there is a reason it's called the PLO.....
3. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by promoting greater energy
efficiency and self-sufficiency.
nice buzzwords: wind turbines in every available space? solar arrays
for miles? Nukes? dam every river for hydro? ban private automobiles?
Increase fuel efficiency for cars, research into new fuel sources,
increased deployment of wind farms and solar arrays are all supported
by most Democrats. Additionally, I think nuclear power is an
indispensible part of any long-term energy strategy.
and a politically impossible one, so you're doomed to failure, as things
stand now. as for the new fuel sources, we've got oil and gas, but no one
can drill for it.... what's the point of finding more when some Luddite
will stop the production. we have a related issue here in the PRC: we've
been losing refineries over the years, so we lack gasoline production
capability. normally, someone would build one, and profit from the need,
but nooooooooooo, can't have one of those evil things here. hell, we can't
even get an LNG terminal built, but every one whines about the high price
of natural gas. for fun, mention nuclear fusion to the first tree hugger
you see, and note their reaction. what other fuel sources are there?
4. Improve border security.
how? which border? how are you going to pay for it?
All of them, as well as the ports. Port security can be
paid for by docking fees and entry fees. The land borders are
going to have to come out of general tax revenues.
higher fees will simply cause cargo to go elsewhere, devastating the
economies of the ports and surrounding areas. do you have a plan for
the borders? do you have any idea how large an area we're talking about?
5. Use cooperative agreements and information exchange with
foreign governments to root out terrorist organizations at home
and abroad.
yes, and history has *so* many instances of such a policy w*rking to the
benefit of all parties.
Less so since Bush was elected. But fighting international criminal
gangs such as Al Qaeda is in almost everyone's interest, don't you think?
ah yes: the obligitory "it's all Bush's fault!" cry. how predictable...
as for "everyone's interest", evidently not.... and even if the top
government says yes, the little guy out in the boonies quite often sees
things differently.
6. Stop the brinksmanship with Iran and Venezuela.
why? what do we gain from that?
Lower oil prices, less wasted resources, long term prospects of
cooperation on terrorism. More peace in the world.
could you hum the first few bars of Kumbyah now?
why should any of what you've postulated come from the actions you suggest?
both governments have made confronting us a primary part of their raison
d'ętre. if we back off, they move forward. also, what about the
manipulations of the PRC in all this, and how do we address that?
what substitute policy do you have
that will protect American interests in those countries and their
regions?
Play nice or we'll boycott your goods. Anything beyond that is
unwarranted interference in the affairs of other countries.
do we care more about their concerns than ours? why? as for a boycott,
we tried that with Japan.....
redc1c4,
simple solutions are usually wrong. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
21 Jun 2007 02:00:16 AM |
|
|
In article <4678DA17.29DA9E09@drunkenbastards.org.ies>,
redc1c4 <redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <46763659.CA88075@drunkenbastards.org.ies>,
redc1c4 <redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <32d973l0ljq4iupc3e3jr7721i492vgbnu@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:12:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:19:03 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Only if 'middle America' blindly follows the Democratioc party line.
Then you've been having knee jerk reactions to her name and ignoring
her actions. Even Newt has spoken well of and to her.
I have been watching her actions. And am not impressed.
Can you name _one_ time she has bucked her party?
Personally, I prefer politicians who are willing to stand by their
principles (even if I may disagree with them).
Even still, my personal opinion about her has nothing to do with the
fact that she has no real appeal outside the Democratic party - and
that will be her downfall.
And I am _still_ waiting for the Democratic plan for protecting us
from Muslim extremist terrorism. Can you explain this to me?
1. End the war in Iraq, removing from the anti-American extremists
their primary recruiting mechanism.
define "end the war": unilateral pullout? gradual turn over to the Iraqis?
UN peace keepers?
Why not? It was a unilateral invasion.
not true,
Well, yeah, we roped a few suckers into going in with us, by deception
and bribery.
and how is a unilateral pullout,
Any pullout is necessarily unilateral from now on, because everybody
else is going to be gone very soon.
which will be perceived
(and rightly so) as a defeat of the US by the forces of Islamofascisim
a benefit to the US, it's place in the world, our interests and the long
term safety of this country and her citizens?
We need to get out because our presence there has destabilized the
country and caused massive death, destruction and misery.
If this is perceived as a victory by the forces opposing us there,
(that is, the Iraqis), so be it. Kind of a Pyrrhic victory, don't
you think? As to how it helps us, it frees up roughly 200,000 fighting
men and women to pursue our actual enemies where they really are, which
is Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The fact is, we've
been tied down and unable to apply the full force of our military
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because we were too
busy laying waste to Iraq for reasons yet unexplained.
BTW: Islam is their primary recruiting mechanism.
That's why the Albanians and Bosnians hate America, right?
it's not surprising that you know little of the make up of those countries,
or why we may have some popularity there for the moment.
It's quite obvious. We helped them out when they were under the gun and
they are grateful. So grateful they even made nice to Bush, when they
know that Clinton is the guy who saved their bacon and Bush is no
Clinton.
why should things
be
the same in other countries, especially where the underlying cultures,
population makeup, history, and geographical locations are different?
And we want their oil?
what percentage of Bosnians are Muslim? what percentage of Albanians
would be Muslims if we hadn't stopped the fighting?
did you know that Albania has been sending troops to OEF/OIF?
I didn't know that. Can't be many.
what w*rks one place is unlikely to w*rk in another.
2. End the wars between Israel and the Palestinians, removing their
former primary recruiting tool. At least put some
distance between US policy and Israeli policy.
how are you going to end that war? eliminate Israel and the Jewish
population? that *is* the stated goal of the Palestinians....
It's a goal of the most extreme factions. Most Palestinians recognize
that's not possible. Most Palestians would settle for the West Bank,
Gaza and perpetually guaranteed access to Jerusalem, access to the lands
they own in and out of Israel, and removal of Israeli settlements in the
West Bank.
i've yet to see anyone announce this as policy. they don't even refer to
Israel as Israel. in deciding between deeds and words, i'll trust deeds.
there is a reason it's called the PLO.....
Yeah, it's because they want freedom from foreign oppression. (Israelis
are viewed as foreign.)
3. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by promoting greater energy
efficiency and self-sufficiency.
nice buzzwords: wind turbines in every available space? solar arrays
for miles? Nukes? dam every river for hydro? ban private automobiles?
Increase fuel efficiency for cars, research into new fuel sources,
increased deployment of wind farms and solar arrays are all supported
by most Democrats. Additionally, I think nuclear power is an
indispensible part of any long-term energy strategy.
and a politically impossible one, so you're doomed to failure, as things
stand now.
Well, some people are just going to have to change their minds.
as for the new fuel sources, we've got oil and gas, but no one
can drill for it....
Tell that to the folks drilling for oil and gas all over the place
around here in Colorado. And there's vast reserves in the Gulf of
Mexico that nobody's touching, though they could.
what's the point of finding more when some Luddite
will stop the production. we have a related issue here in the PRC
You're writing from China?
: we've
been losing refineries over the years, so we lack gasoline production
capability.
So build some.
normally, someone would build one, and profit from the need,
but nooooooooooo, can't have one of those evil things here.
Besides, the oil companies have no interest in building more capacity.
They're shutting down as much of it as they can, which jacks up the
price. Consumption is nearly fixed, so adding capacity would result
in under-utilization, rather than increased sales, and the price would
go down, so they'd lose profit.
hell, we can't
even get an LNG terminal built, but every one whines about the high price
of natural gas.
Proposals have mostly been to build one in a major port, which reduces
cost. But LNG terminals are hazardous, so the city and the port
authorities don't want them there. Put it in 100 or 200 miles up or
down the coast, and it's suddenly feasible, except that costs more.
for fun, mention nuclear fusion to the first tree hugger
you see, and note their reaction.
Well, not everybody's a tree hugger.
what other fuel sources are there?
Garbage, crop waste.
4. Improve border security.
how? which border? how are you going to pay for it?
All of them, as well as the ports. Port security can be
paid for by docking fees and entry fees. The land borders are
going to have to come out of general tax revenues.
higher fees will simply cause cargo to go elsewhere, devastating the
economies of the ports and surrounding areas.
So what, we'll have to build our own goods? You're wildly exaggerating
how much this would cost. We import 800 billion dollars worth
of goods a year. The cost of securing ports would be a drop in that
very big bucket.
do you have a plan for
the borders? do you have any idea how large an area we're talking about?
It's only about 5000 miles. Take the guys we've got in Iraq and station
them along the borders. They'd be one every 160 feet. They'd be
happier about it, too. No roadside bombs, no IEDs. Just friendly
Mexicans and Canadians who know they need a visa to cross the border.
5. Use cooperative agreements and information exchange with
foreign governments to root out terrorist organizations at home
and abroad.
yes, and history has *so* many instances of such a policy w*rking to the
benefit of all parties.
Less so since Bush was elected. But fighting international criminal
gangs such as Al Qaeda is in almost everyone's interest, don't you think?
ah yes: the obligitory "it's all Bush's fault!" cry.
The decline of relations between the USA and most other countries in
the world IS Bush's fault. He's incompetent, and he surrounds himself
with yes-men and fools.
how predictable...
as for "everyone's interest", evidently not.... and even if the top
government says yes, the little guy out in the boonies quite often sees
things differently.
True even in America. There'll always be Ted Kazinskys and Tim McVeighs.
But cooperation from governments is what I am thinking of.
6. Stop the brinksmanship with Iran and Venezuela.
why? what do we gain from that?
Lower oil prices, less wasted resources, long term prospects of
cooperation on terrorism. More peace in the world.
could you hum the first few bars of Kumbyah now?
Catch more flies with honey.
why should any of what you've postulated come from the actions you suggest?
What I'm mainly suggesting is going back to policies that worked in the
past, before Bush and his enablers.
both governments have made confronting us a primary part of their raison
d'ętre. if we back off, they move forward. also, what about the
manipulations of the PRC in all this, and how do we address that?
You have any suggestions?
what substitute policy do you have
that will protect American interests in those countries and their
regions?
Play nice or we'll boycott your goods. Anything beyond that is
unwarranted interference in the affairs of other countries.
do we care more about their concerns than ours? why? as for a boycott,
we tried that with Japan.....
redc1c4,
simple solutions are usually wrong. %-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
21 Jun 2007 01:25:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
The decline of relations between the USA and most other countries in
the world IS Bush's fault. He's incompetent, and he surrounds himself
with yes-men and fools.
And when he does get a good one, he ignores their recommendations.
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
21 Jun 2007 11:35:13 PM |
|
|
In article <jjgl73pptcd3c1leh4j9puq45ioo2r1g6s@4ax.com>,
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
The decline of relations between the USA and most other countries in
the world IS Bush's fault. He's incompetent, and he surrounds himself
with yes-men and fools.
And when he does get a good one, he ignores their recommendations.
And gets rid of them as fast as possible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
21 Jun 2007 08:17:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
We need to get out because our presence there has destabilized the
country and caused massive death, destruction and misery.
And how will out pulling out remedy this situation? Or do you want to
see the civilian death toll rise by a couple of orders of magnitude?
If this is perceived as a victory by the forces opposing us there,
(that is, the Iraqis), so be it.
Received by who? Morons?
The Iraqi people are not fighting us. The Iraqi people support the
government they elected. The people causing the violence want to
become dictators.
Do you have any clue as to who the factions in Iraq are; who is part
of those factions and what their goals are?
Kind of a Pyrrhic victory, don't
you think? As to how it helps us, it frees up roughly 200,000 fighting
men and women to pursue our actual enemies where they really are, which
is Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
It will not free them up. It will destroy their morale. They will
see your forcing them to abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists as
a betrayal - and will no longer be willing to go into harms way when
they expect that they will simply be betrayed again.
Besides - Saudi Arabia fought and defeated Al Queda back in 2004-2005.
The fact is, we've
been tied down and unable to apply the full force of our military
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because we were too
busy laying waste to Iraq for reasons yet unexplained.
Wrong. The war in Iraq has not decreased the resources available to
Afghanistan. In fact - we have about all the troops we can put there
at the moment. (The issue is not troop strength but logistics.)
It sounds like you have not bothered to understand what is going on.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
21 Jun 2007 11:34:36 PM |
|
|
In article <228m73dtodff62t6sormcndcfdl1bcj4h1@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
We need to get out because our presence there has destabilized the
country and caused massive death, destruction and misery.
And how will out pulling out remedy this situation? Or do you want to
see the civilian death toll rise by a couple of orders of magnitude?
How do you figure?
If this is perceived as a victory by the forces opposing us there,
(that is, the Iraqis), so be it.
Received by who? Morons?
The Iraqi people are not fighting us. The Iraqi people support the
government they elected. The people causing the violence want to
become dictators.
No doubt. But the US Armed forces have proven themselves totally
incapable of reducing the level of violence because there are
just SO DAMN MANY Iraqis, YEAH, I SAID IRAQIS, who want to fight
each other. Power in that country is up for grabs, and anybody
with more ambition than scruples is gunning for it. Does that include
foreigners? Sure it does. But what's the difference? If the Iraqis
want an end to the war BAD ENOUGH, they'll kill of the insurgents,
with or without the United States there providing additional targets
and undermining the apparent legitimacy of the local government.
Do you have any clue as to who the factions in Iraq are; who is part
of those factions and what their goals are?
Like I said, anybody with more ambition than scruples.
Kind of a Pyrrhic victory, don't
you think? As to how it helps us, it frees up roughly 200,000 fighting
men and women to pursue our actual enemies where they really are, which
is Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
It will not free them up. It will destroy their morale. They will
see your forcing them to abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists as
a betrayal - and will no longer be willing to go into harms way when
they expect that they will simply be betrayed again.
So taking them out of an unwinnable situation is betrayal? I would say
PUTTING THEM IN this situation that manifestly has NO ONE DAMN THING TO
DO WITH THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES and actually
HARMS THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SENT TO "HELP" is the betrayal. They were
callously used for political purposes and to enrich a small number of
powerful people, and that is that. We just want to stop the crime.
Besides - Saudi Arabia fought and defeated Al Queda back in 2004-2005.
Then how come we can't?
The fact is, we've
been tied down and unable to apply the full force of our military
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because we were too
busy laying waste to Iraq for reasons yet unexplained.
Wrong. The war in Iraq has not decreased the resources available to
Afghanistan. In fact - we have about all the troops we can put there
at the moment. (The issue is not troop strength but logistics.)
How does the Kool-Aid taste, anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Wolf With the Red Roses" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
22 Jun 2007 08:28:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:34:36 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote something wonderfully witty:
In article <228m73dtodff62t6sormcndcfdl1bcj4h1@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
We need to get out because our presence there has destabilized the
country and caused massive death, destruction and misery.
And how will out pulling out remedy this situation? Or do you want to
see the civilian death toll rise by a couple of orders of magnitude?
How do you figure?
If this is perceived as a victory by the forces opposing us there,
(that is, the Iraqis), so be it.
Received by who? Morons?
The Iraqi people are not fighting us. The Iraqi people support the
government they elected. The people causing the violence want to
become dictators.
No doubt. But the US Armed forces have proven themselves totally
incapable of reducing the level of violence because there are
just SO DAMN MANY Iraqis, YEAH, I SAID IRAQIS, who want to fight
each other. Power in that country is up for grabs, and anybody
with more ambition than scruples is gunning for it. Does that include
foreigners? Sure it does. But what's the difference? If the Iraqis
want an end to the war BAD ENOUGH, they'll kill of the insurgents,
with or without the United States there providing additional targets
and undermining the apparent legitimacy of the local government.
Actually big doubt, while they maybe fighting us, they are also
fighting each other. I don't know what others people definition of a
Civil War is, but they sure seem to fit mine.
Not only is there so many damn Iraqi's, there aren't enough American
Troopers either. Letting each adult male head-of-household keep an
AK-47 wasn't all that bright of an idea either.
They'll keep on fighting away with each other until Saddam Version 2.0
comes to power and puts the boot back on their collective neck. It is
the only thing the animals understand. They're only acting according
to their nature.
Do you have any clue as to who the factions in Iraq are; who is part
of those factions and what their goals are?
Like I said, anybody with more ambition than scruples.
Exactly how can bald faced Ambition & Scruples co-exist?
Kind of a Pyrrhic victory, don't
you think? As to how it helps us, it frees up roughly 200,000 fighting
men and women to pursue our actual enemies where they really are, which
is Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
It will not free them up. It will destroy their morale. They will
see your forcing them to abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists as
a betrayal - and will no longer be willing to go into harms way when
they expect that they will simply be betrayed again.
So taking them out of an unwinnable situation is betrayal? I would say
PUTTING THEM IN this situation that manifestly has NO ONE DAMN THING TO
DO WITH THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES and actually
HARMS THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SENT TO "HELP" is the betrayal. They were
callously used for political purposes and to enrich a small number of
powerful people, and that is that. We just want to stop the crime.
Crime my *****. People like you claiming that it is a crime is the true
crime.
Now what is & is not winnable is debatable. If the goal is a
Democratic & Stable Iraq, that surely isn't going to happen.
Unfortunately Democracy only works in a semi-polite society. Nothing
polite about a religious fanatic.
The betrayal is also anyone accusing our troops of being involved in
crime. That is just obscene.
Besides - Saudi Arabia fought and defeated Al Queda back in 2004-2005.
Then how come we can't?
Because the Saudi's didn't. They just semi-recently caught another
cell of 170 of them planning an attack on their Oil Fields.
How does the Kool-Aid taste, anyway?
A little sweet if you use to much sugar.
--
"On a hot summer night, would you offer your
throat to the wolf with the red roses?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
22 Jun 2007 07:25:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:34:36 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
In article <228m73dtodff62t6sormcndcfdl1bcj4h1@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
We need to get out because our presence there has destabilized the
country and caused massive death, destruction and misery.
And how will out pulling out remedy this situation? Or do you want to
see the civilian death toll rise by a couple of orders of magnitude?
How do you figure?
You know - I am stunned by your question. Do you really have so
little clue as to what is happening in Iraq to think that our pulling
out will stop the violence?
If we pull out - what is to stop Al Queda from killing every person
who voted in the Iraqi elections? What is to stop Sadar's thugs from
slaughtering every Sunni? What is to stop the Sunni's from trying to
slaughter the Shia in self defense?
What is to stop the Iranians, Syrians and Turks from invading and
partitioning Iraq? (And each conducting their own genocides?)
Have you thought about this at all?
The Iraqi people are not fighting us. The Iraqi people support the
government they elected. The people causing the violence want to
become dictators.
No doubt. But the US Armed forces have proven themselves totally
incapable of reducing the level of violence because there are
just SO DAMN MANY Iraqis, YEAH, I SAID IRAQIS, who want to fight
each other.
Maybe you can tell us what percentage are doing this? And if you paid
close attention to what is going on over there - the Iraqis are _not_
fighting each other. Take a close look and you will see that there
are instead several terrorist groups attempting to massacre their way
to power.
Power in that country is up for grabs, and anybody
with more ambition than scruples is gunning for it.
And what percentage is this? 2%?
Does that include
foreigners? Sure it does. But what's the difference? If the Iraqis
want an end to the war BAD ENOUGH, they'll kill of the insurgents,
with or without the United States there providing additional targets
and undermining the apparent legitimacy of the local government.
And exactly how are the Iraqi people supposed to tell who is a
terrorist and who is not? Do you think that they walk around wearing
signs or something?
Do you have any clue as to who the factions in Iraq are; who is part
of those factions and what their goals are?
Like I said, anybody with more ambition than scruples.
Wrong.
That is nothing more than a puff of hot air. If you do not know what
the factions are - and what their goals are, you cannot understand the
situation.
Hint: The elected Iraqi government and legitimate political parties
are factions that you have to consider also.
It will not free them up. It will destroy their morale. They will
see your forcing them to abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists as
a betrayal - and will no longer be willing to go into harms way when
they expect that they will simply be betrayed again.
So taking them out of an unwinnable situation is betrayal? I would say
PUTTING THEM IN this situation that manifestly has NO ONE DAMN THING TO
DO WITH THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES and actually
HARMS THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SENT TO "HELP" is the betrayal. They were
callously used for political purposes and to enrich a small number of
powerful people, and that is that. We just want to stop the crime.
In your opinion. The troops tend to see things differently.
Besides - Saudi Arabia fought and defeated Al Queda back in 2004-2005.
Then how come we can't?
You really should have thought before you posted this. Think of the
advantages Saudi Arabia had in doing this.
Wrong. The war in Iraq has not decreased the resources available to
Afghanistan. In fact - we have about all the troops we can put there
at the moment. (The issue is not troop strength but logistics.)
How does the Kool-Aid taste, anyway?
Please explain exactly how we are supposed to support and supply a
large force of troops in Afghanistan. Have you ever bothered to look
at a map?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 Jun 2007 10:55:59 PM |
|
|
In article <c4po73h49r0kqvbf2i37ntp4q6mitai5bv@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:34:36 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
In article <228m73dtodff62t6sormcndcfdl1bcj4h1@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
We need to get out because our presence there has destabilized the
country and caused massive death, destruction and misery.
And how will out pulling out remedy this situation? Or do you want to
see the civilian death toll rise by a couple of orders of magnitude?
How do you figure?
You know - I am stunned by your question. Do you really have so
little clue as to what is happening in Iraq to think that our pulling
out will stop the violence?
If we pull out - what is to stop Al Queda from killing every person
who voted in the Iraqi elections?
Every person who voted in the election. The Iraqis are not helpless.
The Iraqi people are not fighting us. The Iraqi people support the
government they elected. The people causing the violence want to
become dictators.
No doubt. But the US Armed forces have proven themselves totally
incapable of reducing the level of violence because there are
just SO DAMN MANY Iraqis, YEAH, I SAID IRAQIS, who want to fight
each other.
Maybe you can tell us what percentage are doing this? And if you paid
close attention to what is going on over there - the Iraqis are _not_
fighting each other. Take a close look and you will see that there
are instead several terrorist groups attempting to massacre their way
to power.
FOREIGN terrorists? Reports I've heard indicate that foreign
terrorists are a minority of those fighting. This is mostly
a civil war, with some interference from outside.
And exactly how are the Iraqi people supposed to tell who is a
terrorist and who is not? Do you think that they walk around wearing
signs or something?
If THEY can't do it, how the hell are WE supposed to be able to do it.
We can only do it by relying on Iraqis to tell us who is or isn't a
terrorist, and they don't always tell us the truth.
So taking them out of an unwinnable situation is betrayal? I would say
PUTTING THEM IN this situation that manifestly has NO ONE DAMN THING TO
DO WITH THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES and actually
HARMS THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SENT TO "HELP" is the betrayal. They were
callously used for political purposes and to enrich a small number of
powerful people, and that is that. We just want to stop the crime.
In your opinion. The troops tend to see things differently.
Those who haven't figured it out already eventually will.
Besides - Saudi Arabia fought and defeated Al Queda back in 2004-2005.
Then how come we can't?
You really should have thought before you posted this. Think of the
advantages Saudi Arabia had in doing this.
The fact is they didn't defeat Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has
launched attacks (Riyahd, 2003 and Khobar, 2004) within
Saudi Arabia. Since that time, they apparently have had
other priorities, like attacking Americans in Iraq. And
maybe the Saudis reached an understanding with them. I
wouldn't put it past the Saudis to buy al Qaeda off.
Wrong. The war in Iraq has not decreased the resources available to
Afghanistan. In fact - we have about all the troops we can put there
at the moment. (The issue is not troop strength but logistics.)
How does the Kool-Aid taste, anyway?
Please explain exactly how we are supposed to support and supply a
large force of troops in Afghanistan. Have you ever bothered to look
at a map?
Well, it is more difficult than Iraq.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
22 Jun 2007 08:45:07 PM |
|
|
On Jun 22, 8:25 pm, Colin Campbell <activated_...@earthlink.net
(remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:34:36 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
In article <228m73dtodff62t6sormcndcfdl1bcj...@4ax.com>,
Colin Campbell <activated_...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:00:16 -0600, Hugh Gibbons
<hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote:
We need to get out because our presence there has destabilized the
country and caused massive death, destruction and misery.
And how will out pulling out remedy this situation? Or do you want to
see the civilian death toll rise by a couple of orders of magnitude?
How do you figure?
You know - I am stunned by your question. Do you really have so
little clue as to what is happening in Iraq to think that our pulling
out will stop the violence?
If we pull out - what is to stop Al Queda from killing every person
who voted in the Iraqi elections? What is to stop Sadar's thugs from
slaughtering every Sunni? What is to stop the Sunni's from trying to
slaughter the Shia in self defense?
What is to stop the Iranians, Syrians and Turks from invading and
partitioning Iraq? (And each conducting their own genocides?)
Have you thought about this at all?
The Iraqi people are not fighting us. The Iraqi people support the
government they elected. The people causing the violence want to
become dictators.
No doubt. But the US Armed forces have proven themselves totally
incapable of reducing the level of violence because there are
just SO DAMN MANY Iraqis, YEAH, I SAID IRAQIS, who want to fight
each other.
Maybe you can tell us what percentage are doing this? And if you paid
close attention to what is going on over there - the Iraqis are _not_
fighting each other. Take a close look and you will see that there
are instead several terrorist groups attempting to massacre their way
to power.
Power in that country is up for grabs, and anybody
with more ambition than scruples is gunning for it.
And what percentage is this? 2%?
Does that include
foreigners? Sure it does. But what's the difference? If the Iraqis
want an end to the war BAD ENOUGH, they'll kill of the insurgents,
with or without the United States there providing additional targets
and undermining the apparent legitimacy of the local government.
And exactly how are the Iraqi people supposed to tell who is a
terrorist and who is not? Do you think that they walk around wearing
signs or something?
Do you have any clue as to who the factions in Iraq are; who is part
of those factions and what their goals are?
Like I said, anybody with more ambition than scruples.
Wrong.
That is nothing more than a puff of hot air. If you do not know what
the factions are - and what their goals are, you cannot understand the
situation.
Hint: The elected Iraqi government and legitimate political parties
are factions that you have to consider also.
It will not free them up. It will destroy their morale. They will
see your forcing them to abandon the Iraqi people to the terrorists as
a betrayal - and will no longer be willing to go into harms way when
they expect that they will simply be betrayed again.
So taking them out of an unwinnable situation is betrayal? I would say
PUTTING THEM IN this situation that manifestly has NO ONE DAMN THING TO
DO WITH THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES and actually
HARMS THE PEOPLE THEY ARE SENT TO "HELP" is the betrayal. They were
callously used for political purposes and to enrich a small number of
powerful people, and that is that. We just want to stop the crime.
In your opinion. The troops tend to see things differently.
Besides - Saudi Arabia fought and defeated Al Queda back in 2004-2005.
Then how come we can't?
You really should have thought before you posted this. Think of the
advantages Saudi Arabia had in doing this.
Wrong. The war in Iraq has not decreased the resources available to
Afghanistan. In fact - we have about all the troops we can put there
at the moment. (The issue is not troop strength but logistics.)
How does the Kool-Aid taste, anyway?
Please explain exactly how we are supposed to support and supply a
large force of troops in Afghanistan. Have you ever bothered to look
at a map?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Wasn't it our goal to depose Saddam and destroy the WMD. Haven't we
accomplished this, time to go?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 Jun 2007 11:05:34 PM |
|
|
In article <1182563107.952627.245510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Eris <vithant@gmail.com> wrote:
Wasn't it our goal to depose Saddam and destroy the WMD. Haven't we
accomplished this, time to go?
There's two problems with that. The first is that there weren't any
WMD in 2003 worth mentioning, except for those that existed only in
the fantasies of folks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And since the
administration was told this and knew it, it can't be why they invaded.
Getting rid of Saddam sure worked, but the problem there is that now
that he's gone, it's worse than before. Now it's crawling with al Qaeda
recruits, gripped by tribal civil war and one hell of a mess. So we
try to kill them, but they recruit new fighters faster than we can kill
them off. It seems like the only remaining choices are pull out and
leave the Iraqis to deal with it, or stay and fight terrorists there FOR
EVER. Anybody got a third option?
.
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
26 Jun 2007 12:24:05 AM |
|
|
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <1182563107.952627.245510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Eris <vithant@gmail.com> wrote:
Wasn't it our goal to depose Saddam and destroy the WMD. Haven't we
accomplished this, time to go?
There's two problems with that. The first is that there weren't any
WMD in 2003 worth mentioning, except for those that existed only in
the fantasies of folks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And since the
administration was told this and knew it, it can't be why they invaded.
Getting rid of Saddam sure worked, but the problem there is that now
that he's gone, it's worse than before. Now it's crawling with al Qaeda
recruits, gripped by tribal civil war and one hell of a mess. So we
try to kill them, but they recruit new fighters faster than we can kill
them off. It seems like the only remaining choices are pull out and
leave the Iraqis to deal with it, or stay and fight terrorists there FOR
EVER. Anybody got a third option?
win?
redc1c4,
tossing out an unusual idea. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
26 Jun 2007 11:55:39 PM |
|
|
In article <4680A31A.D6E7A75B@drunkenbastards.org.ies>,
redc1c4 <redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Hugh Gibbons wrote:
In article <1182563107.952627.245510@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Eris <vithant@gmail.com> wrote:
Wasn't it our goal to depose Saddam and destroy the WMD. Have | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
