Why We Cannot Win



 Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > Why We Cannot Win

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User: "AK"
Date: 02 Oct 2004 06:07:41 AM
Object: Why We Cannot Win
Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off
the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an
institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties
than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or
necessary but possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of
politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the
increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X
number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody
wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and
those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an
impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more
rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are
precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among
the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the
support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing
radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by
politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the
natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the
streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be
eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and
respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces
have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not
politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking
us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile.
Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and
discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and
convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive
and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at
the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their
representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a
handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them
upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media
bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them.
This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics
for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding
their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more
innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage
and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for
us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown
a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without
realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These
angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army
but also into more support of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and
much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this
costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by
truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck.
This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every
bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every
indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them.
Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and
traditional religious networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many
military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency
and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is
with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and
being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our
elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and
honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric
and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed
by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief
himself has sworn.
September 20, 2004
Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a
reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html
.

User: "Leigh_Bee"

Title: Re: Why We Cannot Win 02 Oct 2004 03:43:13 PM
AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message news:<cv2tl0dtqu06t3jpuar8oar8d2ucuae0la@4ax.com>...

Why We Cannot Win

by Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

SNIP
SO you will understand, when the sandal is on the other foot, and why
your sphincter is coming out of your mouth.
What goes around comes around.
LB
.
User: "Hippie"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 03 Oct 2004 06:17:28 AM
man, just find someone with the right trigger finger..blow the ***** out
of them all with some of the biggest nukes america has got. End of
problem, save face.
.
User: "Leigh_Bee"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 03 Oct 2004 05:21:20 PM
Hippie <hippie@free_love.com> wrote in message news:<cdR7d.12708$5O5.675@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

man, just find someone with the right trigger finger..blow the ***** out
of them all with some of the biggest nukes america has got. End of
problem, save face.

Yes but you have to live on the Planet too, and you might find you
will get back, a strike that would take you out of the equation too.
Play Russian Roulette with 3 slugs in the chamber? @:}
LB
.
User: "Charly the Bastard"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 04 Oct 2004 07:10:11 AM
Leigh_Bee wrote:

Hippie <hippie@free_love.com> wrote in message news:<cdR7d.12708$5O5.675@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

man, just find someone with the right trigger finger..blow the ***** out
of them all with some of the biggest nukes america has got. End of
problem, save face.


Yes but you have to live on the Planet too, and you might find you
will get back, a strike that would take you out of the equation too.
Play Russian Roulette with 3 slugs in the chamber? @:}
LB

From who? The Ruskies? The Chinese? The French? They're the only other Players with the hardware to even
threaten effectivly. India might be able to reach some of our forward deployed assets, but not ConUS.
Pakistan could Fed Ex us one or two, but their popbottle missiles can barely get over their own borders.
That just leaves the 'maybes'; South Africa, Taiwan, North Korea, Isreal, Brazil, Japan, South Korea,
everyone with nuclear power plants. One submarine can erase 192 cities in thirty minutes, and we have
dozens of subs out there, somewhere in all that ocean, waiting for the call. Personally, I don't think it
would take more than a handful of missiles before the rest of Islam was ready to make a deal. Give 'em a
taste of American Jihad and see how they like it.
.
User: "Leigh_Bee"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 06 Oct 2004 05:41:33 PM
Charly the ***** <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<41613DA1.A319BD02@worldnet.att.net>...

Leigh_Bee wrote:

Hippie <hippie@free_love.com> wrote in message news:<cdR7d.12708$5O5.675@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...

man, just find someone with the right trigger finger..blow the ***** out
of them all with some of the biggest nukes america has got. End of
problem, save face.


Yes but you have to live on the Planet too, and you might find you
will get back, a strike that would take you out of the equation too.
Play Russian Roulette with 3 slugs in the chamber? @:}
LB


From who? The Ruskies? The Chinese? The French? They're the only other Players with the hardware to even
threaten effectivly. India might be able to reach some of our forward deployed assets, but not ConUS.
Pakistan could Fed Ex us one or two, but their popbottle missiles can barely get over their own borders.
That just leaves the 'maybes'; South Africa, Taiwan, North Korea, Isreal, Brazil, Japan, South Korea,
everyone with nuclear power plants. One submarine can erase 192 cities in thirty minutes, and we have
dozens of subs out there, somewhere in all that ocean, waiting for the call. Personally, I don't think it
would take more than a handful of missiles before the rest of Islam was ready to make a deal. Give 'em a
taste of American Jihad and see how they like it.

Yes but that is all on paper and after the Iran fiasco coming up, the
enemies of the globalised world will come to the fore, besides a bio
attack may render all responses negligible, and do not forget that
comet nothing like a pulse effect, to scramble all those IC's, and we
know how flying blind is!
Remember your enemy has not dumbed down, but wised up, have you?
LB
.

User: "AK"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 04 Oct 2004 08:09:17 AM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:10:11 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Pakistan could Fed Ex us one or two, but their popbottle missiles can
barely get over their own borders.

Oh the missile can surely reach the borders and beyond when fired from a
submarines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/2188324.stm
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agosta/

Personally, I don't think it would take more than a handful of missiles
before the rest of Islam was ready to make a deal. Give 'em a
taste of American Jihad and see how they like it.

You have your head up your *****. Only the governments get defeated by nukes, not
guerrilla movements like in Iraq or a terrorist group like Al Queda.
Al Queda would grow 1000 times after a handful of missiles, not get defeated.
.
User: "Charly the Bastard"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 04 Oct 2004 11:09:56 AM
AK wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:10:11 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Pakistan could Fed Ex us one or two, but their popbottle missiles can
barely get over their own borders.


Oh the missile can surely reach the borders and beyond when fired from a
submarines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/2188324.stm

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agosta/

Personally, I don't think it would take more than a handful of missiles
before the rest of Islam was ready to make a deal. Give 'em a
taste of American Jihad and see how they like it.


You have your head up your *****. Only the governments get defeated by nukes, not
guerrilla movements like in Iraq or a terrorist group like Al Queda.

Al Queda would grow 1000 times after a handful of missiles, not get defeated.

So they've got a fast attack, big deal. We've got hundreds of those. A fast attack
sub is not a Boomer. Exocet is not a nuclear-capable missile system. Not a
Threat. Al Qaeda can grow to it's heart's content, in a radioactive wasteland.
Please, be my guest, the problem will be gone in a few months when they all ooze to
death from radiation poisoning. I see it as evolution in action; the smart ones
convert to capitalism, the stupid ones get dead. How many get dead is up to them,
we've got plenty of wholesale death and to spare. They'll run out of fanatics long
before we run out of ammo.
.
User: "AK"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 04 Oct 2004 05:51:02 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:09:56 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


Al Queda would grow 1000 times after a handful of missiles, not get defeated.


So they've got a fast attack, big deal. We've got hundreds of those. A fast attack
sub is not a Boomer. Exocet is not a nuclear-capable missile system.

It surely can deliver nukes
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21822
"Pakistan have said Islamabad plans to put nuclear weapons aboard the country's
growing submarine fleet"

Threat. Al Qaeda can grow to it's heart's content, in a radioactive wasteland.
Please, be my guest, the problem will be gone in a few months when they all ooze to
death from radiation poisoning.

"A handful of missiles" would certainly not turn the entire land between West
Africa to East Asia (100 times the size of US) a "wasteland."
And how about the new recruits in the US?
As I said, your head is up your *****.
Pull it out.
.
User: "Charly the Bastard"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 05 Oct 2004 07:02:37 AM
AK wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:09:56 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


Al Queda would grow 1000 times after a handful of missiles, not get defeated.


So they've got a fast attack, big deal. We've got hundreds of those. A fast attack
sub is not a Boomer. Exocet is not a nuclear-capable missile system.


It surely can deliver nukes

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21822

"Pakistan have said Islamabad plans to put nuclear weapons aboard the country's
growing submarine fleet"

Above article didn't say anything about Exocet. Learn to read for comprehension.

Threat. Al Qaeda can grow to it's heart's content, in a radioactive wasteland.
Please, be my guest, the problem will be gone in a few months when they all ooze to
death from radiation poisoning.


"A handful of missiles" would certainly not turn the entire land between West
Africa to East Asia (100 times the size of US) a "wasteland."

They will if you set them to detonate about five feet off the ground.


And how about the new recruits in the US?

That's what lampposts are for.


As I said, your head is up your *****.

Pull it out.

.
User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 05 Oct 2004 06:26:09 PM
Don't try to reason with an idiot. AK will make out any ***** to support
his love affair with terrorists.
J.
Charly the ***** a écrit:

AK wrote:


On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:09:56 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


Al Queda would grow 1000 times after a handful of missiles, not get defeated.


So they've got a fast attack, big deal. We've got hundreds of those. A fast attack
sub is not a Boomer. Exocet is not a nuclear-capable missile system.


It surely can deliver nukes

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21822

"Pakistan have said Islamabad plans to put nuclear weapons aboard the country's
growing submarine fleet"



Above article didn't say anything about Exocet. Learn to read for comprehension.


Threat. Al Qaeda can grow to it's heart's content, in a radioactive wasteland.
Please, be my guest, the problem will be gone in a few months when they all ooze to
death from radiation poisoning.


"A handful of missiles" would certainly not turn the entire land between West
Africa to East Asia (100 times the size of US) a "wasteland."



They will if you set them to detonate about five feet off the ground.


And how about the new recruits in the US?



That's what lampposts are for.


As I said, your head is up your *****.

Pull it out.






.
User: "AK"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 06 Oct 2004 03:14:11 AM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:26:09 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:

Don't try to reason with an idiot. AK will make out any ***** to support
his love affair with terrorists.

I refuted him using reason.
Why can't you do that to me?
Try it, *****.
.
User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 06 Oct 2004 02:38:54 PM
AK a écrit:

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:26:09 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:


Don't try to reason with an idiot. AK will make out any ***** to support
his love affair with terrorists.



I refuted him using reason.

Nah. Exocets will never carry nukes. You refute him with lies like you
always do.
J.


Why can't you do that to me?

Try it, *****.



.
User: "AK"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 06 Oct 2004 03:04:25 PM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:38:54 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:

I refuted him using reason.


Nah. Exocets will never carry nukes. You refute him with lies like you
always do.

Exocet is anti-ship missile. Why would they want to put nukes on anti-ship
missiles?
They would put nukes on other missiles, and I showed you it's possible.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21822
"Pakistan have said Islamabad plans to put nuclear weapons aboard the country's
growing submarine fleet"

.




User: "AK"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 05 Oct 2004 08:37:47 AM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:02:37 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Above article didn't say anything about Exocet. Learn to read for comprehension.

The article did say that they are conisdering arming the subs with nukes. I will
take their words over yours and conclude that it's possible to equip these subs
with nukes.

Threat. Al Qaeda can grow to it's heart's content, in a radioactive wasteland.
Please, be my guest, the problem will be gone in a few months when they all ooze to
death from radiation poisoning.


"A handful of missiles" would certainly not turn the entire land between West
Africa to East Asia (100 times the size of US) a "wasteland."


They will if you set them to detonate about five feet off the ground.

Prove it.
Post your links and sources.
.
User: "AK"

Title: Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES 05 Oct 2004 09:10:12 AM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:37:47 GMT, AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote:

They will if you set them to detonate about five feet off the ground.


Prove it.

Also, even if we assume that is true, Iraq is closer to Western Europe and
Israel than it is to say Pakistan.
Iraq is also closer to Moscow Russia, than it's to Pakistan
Distance between Baghdad and Moscow: 1588 miles (2556 km)
Distance between Baghdad and Islamabad: 1655 miles (2664 km)
That's just Islamabad. Remember you need to spread "radiation" to East Asia ..
i.e. Indonesia .. that's like 6000+ miles
So even if true, the radiation will "take care" of England, Israel, and Moscow
before anything else.
That would mean, you will be fried by Russian nukes in response before anything
else happens.
In other words, even if true, your head is still up your *****.
Try again, *****. You failed to make an argument there.
.




User: "Cuan"

Title: Nuke 'em and we'll be right where we wanna be! (was Re: Why YOU Can win--Use The NUKES) 07 Oct 2004 09:52:07 AM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:09:56 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

AK wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:10:11 GMT, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Pakistan could Fed Ex us one or two, but their popbottle missiles can
barely get over their own borders.


Oh the missile can surely reach the borders and beyond when fired from a
submarines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/2188324.stm

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/agosta/

Personally, I don't think it would take more than a handful of missiles
before the rest of Islam was ready to make a deal. Give 'em a
taste of American Jihad and see how they like it.


You have your head up your *****. Only the governments get defeated by nukes, not
guerrilla movements like in Iraq or a terrorist group like Al Queda.

Al Queda would grow 1000 times after a handful of missiles, not get defeated.


So they've got a fast attack, big deal. We've got hundreds of those. A fast attack
sub is not a Boomer. Exocet is not a nuclear-capable missile system. Not a
Threat. Al Qaeda can grow to it's heart's content, in a radioactive wasteland.
Please, be my guest, the problem will be gone in a few months when they all ooze to
death from radiation poisoning. I see it as evolution in action; the smart ones
convert to capitalism, the stupid ones get dead. How many get dead is up to them,
we've got plenty of wholesale death and to spare. They'll run out of fanatics long
before we run out of ammo.

If you were half the conspiracy theorist you've made yourself out to
be, you should have realised by now that al Qa'ida is not the 'real'
enemy, and talk like this is exactly what has fermented the USA's
reputation in the outside world today.
Nuclear war is inevitable. It will happen soon. You'll get your day
of "glory," don't worry. The question that should be asked is, "why?"
An answer would be that, continuing on the present road, as paved by
the great GW Bush, there will never be any settlement of disputes.
Israel/Palestine is escalating. Iraq is escalating. Russia/Chechnya
is escalating. Iran is busy escalating. Syria is busy escalating
too. Sudan is escalating. The present road has seen the world
community divided into two pairs of camps - the militarists and the
pacifists, and the Judeo Christians and the Moslems. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons amongst the Islamic states has now
caused the situation to ferment even further, no thanks to the USA and
its corporations.
A simple study of the Illuminist agenda would indicate that the NWO is
going exactly according to plan, albeit a little behind schedule.
This is where the radical fundamentalist, GW Bush got his starring
role in the plot. He hasn't been nearly as vocal about the NWO as his
daddy was, but then again, his part is to epitomise that which the NWO
is intended to prevent. His other role was to carefully erode civil
liberties - but not just in the US, but in all world states. This has
become evident since 9/11 with new, tighter security controls being
passed into law in most countries. Even more concerning is the sudden
emergence of the subdermal identification implant as a viable security
measure with its tracing capabilities amongst other things.
I don't feel John Kerry will be in a position to diffuse tensions
which have been provoked thus far by the Bush administration. He has,
however, due to the apparent ineptness of Bush Jnr., been rammed down
the American throats as their only alternative to the daffy president
they presently have. This is an erosion of democracy all on its own,
with the people chanting slogans like "ABB" (Anyone But Bush). The US
public are wedged between a rock and a hard place. Either they vote
for an evangelical fundamentalist, inept presidential war-monger, or
they vote for an eloquent, rational, calculating candidate - who is
far more likely to achieve the goals of the Illuminists during his
term(s) as president. What transpires in Kerry's first term (because
I'm almost certain he will be elected) is likely to shape his
presidency, as it did Bush's. Don't read too much into their
electioneering - it can change at the drop of a hat (or a building),
as we found after 9/11. I haven't seen as much eloquence in a
candidate since Bill Clinton - and there was some shady stuff going on
during his presidency too.
Now then, getting back to "why." Simply because there is no other
solution - something which I believe to have been engineered to
completion by the Bush/Cheney regime. This baggage will follow Kerry
into his term(s), and he won't be able to diffuse it, and some might
ask, "why would he want to?" He wouldn't want to. He's being funded
by the same people who are funding the Bush/Cheney campaign. Let's
see...
CITIGROUP: a global investment banking conglomerate whose clientele
includes the likes of Bechtel, Royal Dutch/Shell and the Carlyle
Group, Enron etc., and has a nice stake in Halliburton and probably
others.
http://www.smithbarney.com/research/disclaimer/HAL.html
UBS AG INC.: a Swiss global investment management conglomerate whose
clientele includes the likes of Halliburton and Enron and probably
others. UBS owns more than 1% stock in Halliburton.
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/enron-oped_mar02.shtml
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP: a global investment banking and management
conglomerat - oh, and they own Burger King! (who hired a Halliburton
'vice president of investor relations') ;-) The Carlyle Group, one
of their venture partners, also hired two ex-Goldman Sachs employees
and promoted them to MDs. They hold investments in Halliburton too.
Like Bechtel, Halliburton, Carlyle, CitiGroup et al, they're also
suspected of trading with the Binladen Group.
MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER & CO.: a global investment management and
financial advisory company with credit subsidiary. Clientele and
partners include the usual suspects, Halliburton, Carlyle, Enron,
Bechtel, CitiGroup, blah blah blah.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0215-01.htm
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2001/corpnws_013101.jsp
Hmm, so government is a good investment, I suppose. Although,
investment managers usually invest OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, so, apart
from their own interests in the profitability of war, it could stand
to reason that the macha might also originate from a third party.
Anyway, enough of that conspiracy stuff - it's so obviously untrue.
But, wait, let us just pay lip service to it for now. Considering
that one of the so-called aims of the NWO is a global population
reduction, what goal would a nuclear war achieve? Well, it might
serve to reduce the population I guess - quite significantly too, I
might add. Presently, nuclear war is inevitable. There's no cold war
happening here. The proliferation of nuclear arms has rapidly
increased, with the supply of materials coming from western sources,
as well as from the ex-Bolchevist Russia, which, it has been
speculated, was a collaborator with the Illuminist agenda during and
after the first world war. Putin himself, an ex-KGB stalwart of the
communist era, is now the moralist leader of a land wrought with
terrorism. While trading nuclear facilities with Iran, they are still
admired even by a fair portion of the American public for their
seeming alliance with Bush's policy on terrorism.
Everywhere you look, you find bigotry, yet there are those of us who
cannot, or will not see it. This would indicate media conditioning,
or 'brain-washing' if you will - the weapon of choice for any
intelligence community. Propaganda is not only a million leaflets
dropped by aircraft behind enemy lines - it has to be utilised
universally in order to be effective. You need to keep your own
citizens bamboozled just as much, if not more than your actual enemy.
Popular support is of much more importance than mere defections. The
topic of "conspiracy theory" is as much a victim of media
conditioning. I watched while a very laid back, Mafioso
Godfather-looking Frank Carlucci of the Carlyle Group dismissed the
idea of any involvement in the 9/11 attacks despite all the profit his
company had made. Read all about him at
http://www.counterpunch.org/schorcarlucci.html. Man, he certainly
gets around, doesn't he? He seems to have lived a rather 'fruitfull'
life in both his political and corporate careers.
Now, while on the surface this conspiracy appears to simply be the
pursuit of wealth, there could be a bigger picture. Somebody once
said, "Money to get power, power to protect money." Having money,
means having power - it doesn't necessarily mean that your motives are
to get rich, but instead, to get powerfull. As it already stands, the
Illuminists have control over the world's energy markets; the world's
financial system; the Security Council; NATO; the pharmaceutical
industry, and even the UN's conservation parks, and probably a whole
lot more. They don't need more money - they're the richest people in
the world. Power and influence is their real motive. I wonder
whether the same people who called the 'theorists' "crackpots", will
even know what hit them whilst standing in a queue waiting to get
their arms chipped "for their own safety."
Anyway, I don't wish to embark on any "I told you so" speech. The
9/11 event didn't benefit anybody really - Osama bin Laden didn't
benefit; Saddam Hussein didn't benefit; Iraq surely didn't benefit;
Afghanistan doesn't appear to have benefitted either. Most
importantly, the plebians of the planet didn't benefit. So then, who
did? I think the facts are right there, right on the NYSE. I'm not a
financial person myself, but I'm sure you'll find out quite a bit if
you are - follow the money I always say. Once you've found out who
the profiteers were, then you'd have solved your very first
conspiracy. After that one, however, there's yet another, slightly
less believable than the first, although not mutually exclusive. But,
it's nearly impossible to find any concrete evidence that they exist
today - those facts are found in history, at a time when the cabal was
not as influencial as they have become thus far. Their names haven't
changed much, though.
Anyway, that was just my 2539921231326334c worth.
"Crackpot" signing off. ;-)
.







User: "Mister Spock"

Title: Re: Why We Cannot Win 11 Oct 2004 11:04:12 AM
Another government ***** too stupid to foresee the evil he
chose to become a part of. At least the little fool has the balls to
admit he the US are fucked.
AK wrote:


Why We Cannot Win

by Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off
the tracks.

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an
institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties
than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or
necessary but possible.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of
politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the
increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X
number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody
wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and
those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an
impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more
rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are
precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among
the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the
support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing
radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by
politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the
natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the
streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be
eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and
respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces
have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not
politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking
us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile.
Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and
discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and
convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive
and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at
the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their
representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a
handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them
upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media
bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them.
This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics
for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding
their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more
innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage
and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for
us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown
a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without
realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These
angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army
but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and
much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this
costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by
truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck.
This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every
bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every
indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them.
Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and
traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many
military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency
and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is
with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and
being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our
elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and
honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric
and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed
by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief
himself has sworn.

September 20, 2004

Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a
reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

.
User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: Re: Why We Cannot Win 11 Oct 2004 12:33:44 PM
Most have courage and don't buy the lies by weasels like you unlike this
*****, while you are an ***** who has sympathy for terrorists and has
not even the balls to post under your own name.
J.
Mister Spock a écrit:

Another government ***** too stupid to foresee the evil he
chose to become a part of. At least the little fool has the balls to
admit he the US are fucked.

AK wrote:

Why We Cannot Win

[disgruntled ***** comment sbnipped]
.


User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: Re: Why We Can Win 02 Oct 2004 09:29:04 AM
http://www.muslimsforbush.com/
J.
AK a écrit:

Why We Cannot Win

by Al Lorentz
[lies snipped]

.
User: "AK"

Title: Re: Why We Can Win 02 Oct 2004 09:45:22 AM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:29:04 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:

http://www.muslimsforbush.com/

How is that a response to the article you are replying to?
Muslims for Bush? So some Muslims are idiots, like a lot of Christians. What's
the surprise there?
.
User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: Re: Why We Can Win 02 Oct 2004 06:54:45 PM
AK a écrit:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:29:04 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:


http://www.muslimsforbush.com/



How is that a response to the article you are replying to?

Muslims for Bush? So some Muslims are idiots, like a lot of Christians. What's
the surprise there?

Well, one could reply that this says in fact that they are not all
idiots. :-)
Indicates there is true freedom of thought even in the Muslim
population, when in the USA.
It is good to see that even these monotheists are not as monolithic as
one could think.
J.
.
User: "Mister Spock"

Title: Re: Why We Can Win 11 Oct 2004 11:15:12 AM
Jean is too braindead to admit the soldier is right and this War on
Terror can't be won. Thats why you'll never see Jean refute that article
with an intellectual argument. It can't be done. The situation the
soldier described is all true and exactly whats happening. For this
truth to be known and accepted, would guarantee Bush's defeat and prove
how evil that administration really is.
How can anyone who has taken time to look at all the evidence
objectively ever conclude a War on Terror can be won?
America is losing and will lose this War in form of a mushroom cloud.
Bush will surely lead this world into a holocaust and when this war is
over and billions die, I can't wait for Bush and those like Jean who
supported his insane pipe dream to declare victory.
unfuckingbelievable these fools are
Jean Guernon wrote:


AK a écrit:

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:29:04 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:


http://www.muslimsforbush.com/



How is that a response to the article you are replying to?

Muslims for Bush? So some Muslims are idiots, like a lot of Christians. What's
the surprise there?


Well, one could reply that this says in fact that they are not all
idiots. :-)

Indicates there is true freedom of thought even in the Muslim
population, when in the USA.

It is good to see that even these monotheists are not as monolithic as
one could think.

J.

.
User: "Jean Guernon"

Title: Re: Why We Can Win 11 Oct 2004 12:38:08 PM
Mister Spock a écrit:

Jean is too braindead to admit the soldier is right and this War on
Terror can't be won.

Bah, the difference is that you are an ***** that can't admit that the
war on terror cannot be lost.
You advocate presenting your rear end and asking for more.
Of course it can be won, if weasels in the world, including the UN and
the Muslims of the world, stop trying to appease the terrorists.
But you on the other hand kiss their ***** with ferocious delight.
J.
.






  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER