Jester;1083647 wrote: Jimbo you just do what we been doing, western nations ( nations who support the casue) need to pool intel, be open, have a ready force to deploy to root out and destropy terror cells wherever they find them, first as part of that coutnries sovering responsibilty to make themsleves safe, then as a brother to the world.
If they need help ask for help, but if they wont help, then Im sorry but they brought it on themselves, whatever happens to their coutnry in the process happens.
And yes it may take years and years, and will take years and years. But you cant turn a blind eye to it and let them build to a point that they can control a region especially one with nuclear weapons.
I belive this also jester. The countries who neglect to clean terrorists out of their country...western nations have to go in and do it. It is vital that this is done.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1083628 wrote: There is a balance between diplomacy and military intervention, diplomacy should always be first and last, my issue is that in between you give it to the military and leave us alone to do our jobs, Spot, I gather just thinks our US Military has no moral fiber whatsoever. So he's agaisnt us having any run at it at all.
Pam I am at heart a peaceful man, thats my goal and Im willing to go a logn way towards peace, but once the violence starts I want to be turned loose to fight back to have that opportunity for peace again.
But thats the issue, at heart people like Spot (and I do respect this) think that violence wont solve it, but offering them more peace and consessions wont either, the problem with the tennis ball is that we are angry enough that we want payback and we are peaceful enough to give them more room, I see and feel the same things, I'm just passed the thought that diplomacy can work in this situation.
Jester, as a military man, I respect your opinion and your world view. I understand why you feel the way you do. In general I agree that security and peace are ultimately only obtainable through the use of direct power, and I am no peacenik. If the US was unprepared to use force when required then as a nation it would have no long term future. However, the trick is to know when and where such force is required in the best long-term interests of the US and its allies.
As you understand, although force is often required in what is a bad world, it must always be used in a manner that will actually benefit your long term interests, and not harm them. The use of force for its own sake is pointless and dangerous (as war is such an unpredictable enterprise that uses a huge amount of any nation's resources); therefore, as an instrument of policy it must be used only when strictly required, and when it will actually achieve a definable objective that is worth achieving.
In terms of the war on terror, my main point would be not that force should not be used, but that is should be used to actually fight Al Queda, and not wasted on some quixotic mission to turn Iraq into a middle eastern democracy, as that was always doomed to be a short-term military victory, but a long term military and political disaster.
The resources wasted on Iraq could have been used to obliterate Al Queda at this stage, if those resources had been used wisely in the right places, using the right tactics. Al Queda are not unbeatable as a movement, but they are not beatable just using a standing army and a gung-ho attitude of "take no prisoners", as they are not an industrialized state, but an ideological movement.
To beat ideas you mostly need better ideas and to either destroy or demoralize your enemy to the point where they are no longer able to fight. But for all we can do, in the long run, the only people who will destroy Al Queda as a movement are other moderate secular muslims, we need to help them do that through force and reason, not undermine them.
Instead of specifically and selectively going after as much of Al Queda as possible, the vast military and intelligence resources of the US have instead been mostly used to destroy a secular, anti-islamicist Arab state, turn it's territory into a relgious civil war waiting to happen, and destabilize the region in a way that has made Iran more powerful than it previsouly was, Pakistan verging on the brink of collapse, and the Pro-American governments of the middle-east more vunerable than ever to the fury of their own people, thats an outcome totally contrary to US interests.
Was all this worth the removal of a tin pot dictator from a country already on its knees, that was the sworn enemy of Al Queda? I truly don't think so and believe that Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster for the US, and of course for the Iraqi's themselves, with the one proviso that its not Saddam they have to fear any more, just each other.
Pam I am at heart a peaceful man, thats my goal and Im willing to go a logn way towards peace, but once the violence starts I want to be turned loose to fight back to have that opportunity for peace again.
But thats the issue, at heart people like Spot (and I do respect this) think that violence wont solve it, but offering them more peace and consessions wont either, the problem with the tennis ball is that we are angry enough that we want payback and we are peaceful enough to give them more room, I see and feel the same things, I'm just passed the thought that diplomacy can work in this situation.
Jester, as a military man, I respect your opinion and your world view. I understand why you feel the way you do. In general I agree that security and peace are ultimately only obtainable through the use of direct power, and I am no peacenik. If the US was unprepared to use force when required then as a nation it would have no long term future. However, the trick is to know when and where such force is required in the best long-term interests of the US and its allies.
As you understand, although force is often required in what is a bad world, it must always be used in a manner that will actually benefit your long term interests, and not harm them. The use of force for its own sake is pointless and dangerous (as war is such an unpredictable enterprise that uses a huge amount of any nation's resources); therefore, as an instrument of policy it must be used only when strictly required, and when it will actually achieve a definable objective that is worth achieving.
In terms of the war on terror, my main point would be not that force should not be used, but that is should be used to actually fight Al Queda, and not wasted on some quixotic mission to turn Iraq into a middle eastern democracy, as that was always doomed to be a short-term military victory, but a long term military and political disaster.
The resources wasted on Iraq could have been used to obliterate Al Queda at this stage, if those resources had been used wisely in the right places, using the right tactics. Al Queda are not unbeatable as a movement, but they are not beatable just using a standing army and a gung-ho attitude of "take no prisoners", as they are not an industrialized state, but an ideological movement.
To beat ideas you mostly need better ideas and to either destroy or demoralize your enemy to the point where they are no longer able to fight. But for all we can do, in the long run, the only people who will destroy Al Queda as a movement are other moderate secular muslims, we need to help them do that through force and reason, not undermine them.
Instead of specifically and selectively going after as much of Al Queda as possible, the vast military and intelligence resources of the US have instead been mostly used to destroy a secular, anti-islamicist Arab state, turn it's territory into a relgious civil war waiting to happen, and destabilize the region in a way that has made Iran more powerful than it previsouly was, Pakistan verging on the brink of collapse, and the Pro-American governments of the middle-east more vunerable than ever to the fury of their own people, thats an outcome totally contrary to US interests.
Was all this worth the removal of a tin pot dictator from a country already on its knees, that was the sworn enemy of Al Queda? I truly don't think so and believe that Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster for the US, and of course for the Iraqi's themselves, with the one proviso that its not Saddam they have to fear any more, just each other.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083347 wrote: Commissioning and supporting terrorists is different from neglecting to do anything about terrorism. Doing nothing is really the cousin of supporting anyway. Saddam offerred money to the families of suicide bombers to replace their homes thats why they took him out. By looking the other way, those countries are indirectly supporting terrorism. They allow it to grow within their countries. If they are not going to do anything about it, then western nations will go in and do the job that needs to be done.
To paraphrase then - those who aren't with us are against us so we'll kill them. A wonderful philosophy for the shell shocked but hardly a way to live a healthy life.
As to the bit I've highlighted, can you produce any evidence of that (prior to the invasion of course) because your government's enquiry team couldn't.
To paraphrase then - those who aren't with us are against us so we'll kill them. A wonderful philosophy for the shell shocked but hardly a way to live a healthy life.
As to the bit I've highlighted, can you produce any evidence of that (prior to the invasion of course) because your government's enquiry team couldn't.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083355 wrote: Oh I see....if I dont agree with you then I am frothing and ranting eh? Great debating tactics. Thats the problem with you Spot, you cant accept any disagreement.
That you, of all people, should post that is laughable when your entire repertoire for most of this thread has been mocking those who disagree with you.
That you, of all people, should post that is laughable when your entire repertoire for most of this thread has been mocking those who disagree with you.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083358 wrote: Maybe the only Iraquis they can find all agree with American involvment.
If all is sweetness and light between the US and the Iraqis then why did you need to send more troops over there in "The Surge"?
Think again!
If all is sweetness and light between the US and the Iraqis then why did you need to send more troops over there in "The Surge"?
Think again!
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083374 wrote: Because most are in favor of American involvement. Maybe they could not find any to interview that were against USA involvement.
Most are in favour
Could not find any
Do these two statements equate I ask myself?
Most are in favour
Could not find any
Do these two statements equate I ask myself?
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Bryn Mawr;1083657 wrote: To paraphrase then - those who aren't with us are against us so we'll kill them. A wonderful philosophy for the shell shocked but hardly a way to live a healthy life.
As to the bit I've highlighted, can you produce any evidence of that (prior to the invasion of course) because your government's enquiry team couldn't.
It was on worldwide broadcast news....google it.
As to the bit I've highlighted, can you produce any evidence of that (prior to the invasion of course) because your government's enquiry team couldn't.
It was on worldwide broadcast news....google it.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Bryn Mawr;1083657 wrote: To paraphrase then - those who aren't with us are against us so we'll kill them. A wonderful philosophy for the shell shocked but hardly a way to live a healthy life.
As to the bit I've highlighted, can you produce any evidence of that (prior to the invasion of course) because your government's enquiry team couldn't.
Your paraphrase is nowhere close to summarizing my post. Dont try to twist my words. And the "shell shocked" dig was uncalled for. If you just want to throw mud, then throw it at someone else.
As to the bit I've highlighted, can you produce any evidence of that (prior to the invasion of course) because your government's enquiry team couldn't.
Your paraphrase is nowhere close to summarizing my post. Dont try to twist my words. And the "shell shocked" dig was uncalled for. If you just want to throw mud, then throw it at someone else.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1083615 wrote: Removal of Saddam.
That, in and of itself, is not a legal justification - try again.
That, in and of itself, is not a legal justification - try again.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
AussiePam;1083368 wrote: I'll probably regret writing this - but whenever I read Jester et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Spot et al. And whenever I read Spot et al on these kind of subjects, I groan inwardly and my psyche cries out for the pronouncements of Jester et al. So one lurches back and forth, like a ball in a tennis match, messing about with metaphor, a million miles from either position, and hoping reality lies somewhere in between these unattractive extremes.
What makes me wince, to my core, is not that Jester disputes the figure of a million dead as a result of the war but that he finds over a third of a million dead acceptable.
And yer million iraqi number is a lie, another vastly outrageous claim base don false data collection, Its still under 360,000 dead as a result of the war, most of that is indirect, the rest is as a direct result of active engagement with Coalition forces by armed insurgents and home grown fighters.
What makes me wince, to my core, is not that Jester disputes the figure of a million dead as a result of the war but that he finds over a third of a million dead acceptable.
And yer million iraqi number is a lie, another vastly outrageous claim base don false data collection, Its still under 360,000 dead as a result of the war, most of that is indirect, the rest is as a direct result of active engagement with Coalition forces by armed insurgents and home grown fighters.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083670 wrote: It was on worldwide broadcast news....google it.
I find no evidence - care to produce some?
I find no evidence - care to produce some?
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083673 wrote: Your paraphrase is nowhere close to summarizing my post. Dont try to twist my words. And the "shell shocked" dig was uncalled for. If you just want to throw mud, then throw it at someone else.
Then how would you summarise :-
By looking the other way, those countries are indirectly supporting terrorism. They allow it to grow within their countries. If they are not going to do anything about it, then western nations will go in and do the job that needs to be done.
And I'm still waiting for the evidence from the bit you so neatly ignored.
Then how would you summarise :-
By looking the other way, those countries are indirectly supporting terrorism. They allow it to grow within their countries. If they are not going to do anything about it, then western nations will go in and do the job that needs to be done.
And I'm still waiting for the evidence from the bit you so neatly ignored.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Galbally;1083656 wrote: Jester, as a military man, I respect your opinion and your world view. I understand why you feel the way you do. In general I agree that security and peace are ultimately only obtainable through the use of direct power, and I am no peacenik. If the US was unprepared to use force when required then as a nation it would have no long term future. However, the trick is to know when and where such force is required in the best long-term interests of the US and its allies.
As you understand, although force is often required in what is a bad world, it must always be used in a manner that will actually benefit your long term interests, and not harm them. The use of force for its own sake is pointless and dangerous (as war is such an unpredictable enterprise that uses a huge amount of any nation's resources); therefore, as an instrument of policy it must be used only when strictly required, and when it will actually achieve a definable objective that is worth achieving.
In terms of the war on terror, my main point would be not that force should not be used, but that is should be used to actually fight Al Queda, and not wasted on some quixotic mission to turn Iraq into a middle eastern democracy, as that was always doomed to be a short-term military victory, but a long term military and political disaster.
The resources wasted on Iraq could have been used to obliterate Al Queda at this stage, if those resources had been used wisely in the right places, using the right tactics. Al Queda are not unbeatable as a movement, but they are not beatable just using a standing army and a gung-ho attitude of "take no prisoners", as they are not an industrialized state, but an ideological movement.
To beat ideas you mostly need better ideas and to either destroy or demoralize your enemy to the point where they are no longer able to fight. But for all we can do, in the long run, the only people who will destroy Al Queda as a movement are other moderate secular muslims, we need to help them do that through force and reason, not undermine them.
Instead of specifically and selectively going after as much of Al Queda as possible, the vast military and intelligence resources of the US have instead been mostly used to destroy a secular, anti-islamicist Arab state, turn it's territory into a relgious civil war waiting to happen, and destabilize the region in a way that has made Iran more powerful than it previsouly was, Pakistan verging on the brink of collapse, and the Pro-American governments of the middle-east more vunerable than ever to the fury of their own people, thats an outcome totally contrary to US interests.
Was all this worth the removal of a tin pot dictator from a country already on its knees, that was the sworn enemy of Al Queda? I truly don't think so and believe that Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster for the US, and of course for the Iraqi's themselves, with the one proviso that its not Saddam they have to fear any more, just each other.
You make an excellent point with regard to using power effectively. But the terrorist problem spans over several countries. Some countries are doing what they can to clean them out....but others are not. Iraq is one of those. It may be secular, but despite that there are problems there. And I have to disagree with regard to "Pro-American governments in the Middle East. There arent really any. Oh they pretend to be allies, but behind our backs they are not.
War always destabilizes to some degree, but I think in the end this was necessary. It will be necessary to go into some other countries as well. Of course there were never WMD there, but because of the unique circumstances surrounding terrorist activity in the entire region (not just Iraq) they needed an excuse that sounded plausable at the time. War is never good or healthy, but sometimes there are no options left. I dont believe this was use of force just for the sake of it.
As you understand, although force is often required in what is a bad world, it must always be used in a manner that will actually benefit your long term interests, and not harm them. The use of force for its own sake is pointless and dangerous (as war is such an unpredictable enterprise that uses a huge amount of any nation's resources); therefore, as an instrument of policy it must be used only when strictly required, and when it will actually achieve a definable objective that is worth achieving.
In terms of the war on terror, my main point would be not that force should not be used, but that is should be used to actually fight Al Queda, and not wasted on some quixotic mission to turn Iraq into a middle eastern democracy, as that was always doomed to be a short-term military victory, but a long term military and political disaster.
The resources wasted on Iraq could have been used to obliterate Al Queda at this stage, if those resources had been used wisely in the right places, using the right tactics. Al Queda are not unbeatable as a movement, but they are not beatable just using a standing army and a gung-ho attitude of "take no prisoners", as they are not an industrialized state, but an ideological movement.
To beat ideas you mostly need better ideas and to either destroy or demoralize your enemy to the point where they are no longer able to fight. But for all we can do, in the long run, the only people who will destroy Al Queda as a movement are other moderate secular muslims, we need to help them do that through force and reason, not undermine them.
Instead of specifically and selectively going after as much of Al Queda as possible, the vast military and intelligence resources of the US have instead been mostly used to destroy a secular, anti-islamicist Arab state, turn it's territory into a relgious civil war waiting to happen, and destabilize the region in a way that has made Iran more powerful than it previsouly was, Pakistan verging on the brink of collapse, and the Pro-American governments of the middle-east more vunerable than ever to the fury of their own people, thats an outcome totally contrary to US interests.
Was all this worth the removal of a tin pot dictator from a country already on its knees, that was the sworn enemy of Al Queda? I truly don't think so and believe that Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster for the US, and of course for the Iraqi's themselves, with the one proviso that its not Saddam they have to fear any more, just each other.
You make an excellent point with regard to using power effectively. But the terrorist problem spans over several countries. Some countries are doing what they can to clean them out....but others are not. Iraq is one of those. It may be secular, but despite that there are problems there. And I have to disagree with regard to "Pro-American governments in the Middle East. There arent really any. Oh they pretend to be allies, but behind our backs they are not.
War always destabilizes to some degree, but I think in the end this was necessary. It will be necessary to go into some other countries as well. Of course there were never WMD there, but because of the unique circumstances surrounding terrorist activity in the entire region (not just Iraq) they needed an excuse that sounded plausable at the time. War is never good or healthy, but sometimes there are no options left. I dont believe this was use of force just for the sake of it.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1083704 wrote: Bryn yer not talkin to a lawyer, I dint give a crap about legalities, its my reason alone that makes it justifed in my book, as I have said many times, when it come to national security we dont need internationl legalities.
Not even International Law - it breaks you own laws too.
It is also immoral and unjustifiable to invade another country just because you don't like its leader.
Not even International Law - it breaks you own laws too.
It is also immoral and unjustifiable to invade another country just because you don't like its leader.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Bryn Mawr;1083693 wrote: I find no evidence - care to produce some?
I am not going to do your research for you. Go google it yourself
I am not going to do your research for you. Go google it yourself
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
I'll go and check.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
spot;1083854 wrote: It's not there, it doesn't exist, you invented it.
I didnt invent it. It was right before they took out Saddam. It was when Israel was threatening....or I think they actually were demolishing the homes of the suicide bombers families. Saddam promised to pay 25K, as I remember for each demolished house. The money of course to the families of the suicide bombers. A few days later we were in Iraq..it was right away. It was in all the news. Try "Saddam pays suicide bombers families" or "Saddam replaces demolished houses" Something like that. It is there because when I heard it on the news I googled it myself.
I didnt invent it. It was right before they took out Saddam. It was when Israel was threatening....or I think they actually were demolishing the homes of the suicide bombers families. Saddam promised to pay 25K, as I remember for each demolished house. The money of course to the families of the suicide bombers. A few days later we were in Iraq..it was right away. It was in all the news. Try "Saddam pays suicide bombers families" or "Saddam replaces demolished houses" Something like that. It is there because when I heard it on the news I googled it myself.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083857 wrote: I didnt invent it. It was right before they took out Saddam. It was when Israel was threatening....or I think they actually were demolishing the homes of the suicide bombers families. Saddam promised to pay 25K, as I remember for each demolished house. The money of course to the families of the suicide bombers. A few days later we were in Iraq..it was right away. It was in all the news. Try "Saddam pays suicide bombers families" or "Saddam replaces demolished houses" Something like that. It is there because when I heard it on the news I googled it myself.
Here we are from March 2003, the month of the invasion.Altogether, more than $1m is to be handed out in Gaza in the coming days in the Iraqi leader's name - probably the last distribution of its kind if the Americans forge ahead with their invasion plans.
The money is allocated on a sliding scale: $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; $10,000 to fighters killed resisting the Israelis; $1,000 for a battle injury and $5,000 in compensation for a demolished home.
Yesterday, there were 23 families on hand to take President Saddam's money. Those honoured included a Palestinian policeman and a host of young men who sought glory in a largely futile death. Few had succeeded in sacrificing Israeli lives with their own.
With each cheque, drawn on the Cairo Amman bank, came a large certificate decorated with the Iraqi and Palestinian flags. "A gift from President Saddam Hussein to the family of a martyr in the al-Aqsa intifada," the inscription read. "To those who irrigate the land with their blood. You deserve the honour you will receive from God and you will defeat all who bow before your will."
Saddam funds fail to buy Gaza hearts | World news | The Guardian
Here we are from March 2003, the month of the invasion.Altogether, more than $1m is to be handed out in Gaza in the coming days in the Iraqi leader's name - probably the last distribution of its kind if the Americans forge ahead with their invasion plans.
The money is allocated on a sliding scale: $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; $10,000 to fighters killed resisting the Israelis; $1,000 for a battle injury and $5,000 in compensation for a demolished home.
Yesterday, there were 23 families on hand to take President Saddam's money. Those honoured included a Palestinian policeman and a host of young men who sought glory in a largely futile death. Few had succeeded in sacrificing Israeli lives with their own.
With each cheque, drawn on the Cairo Amman bank, came a large certificate decorated with the Iraqi and Palestinian flags. "A gift from President Saddam Hussein to the family of a martyr in the al-Aqsa intifada," the inscription read. "To those who irrigate the land with their blood. You deserve the honour you will receive from God and you will defeat all who bow before your will."
Saddam funds fail to buy Gaza hearts | World news | The Guardian
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
spot;1083859 wrote: Here we are from March 2003, the month of the invasion.Altogether, more than $1m is to be handed out in Gaza in the coming days in the Iraqi leader's name - probably the last distribution of its kind if the Americans forge ahead with their invasion plans.
The money is allocated on a sliding scale: $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; $10,000 to fighters killed resisting the Israelis; $1,000 for a battle injury and $5,000 in compensation for a demolished home.
Yesterday, there were 23 families on hand to take President Saddam's money. Those honoured included a Palestinian policeman and a host of young men who sought glory in a largely futile death. Few had succeeded in sacrificing Israeli lives with their own.
With each cheque, drawn on the Cairo Amman bank, came a large certificate decorated with the Iraqi and Palestinian flags. "A gift from President Saddam Hussein to the family of a martyr in the al-Aqsa intifada," the inscription read. "To those who irrigate the land with their blood. You deserve the honour you will receive from God and you will defeat all who bow before your will."
Saddam funds fail to buy Gaza hearts | World news | The Guardian
That looks like the right one....and the date fits also.
The money is allocated on a sliding scale: $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; $10,000 to fighters killed resisting the Israelis; $1,000 for a battle injury and $5,000 in compensation for a demolished home.
Yesterday, there were 23 families on hand to take President Saddam's money. Those honoured included a Palestinian policeman and a host of young men who sought glory in a largely futile death. Few had succeeded in sacrificing Israeli lives with their own.
With each cheque, drawn on the Cairo Amman bank, came a large certificate decorated with the Iraqi and Palestinian flags. "A gift from President Saddam Hussein to the family of a martyr in the al-Aqsa intifada," the inscription read. "To those who irrigate the land with their blood. You deserve the honour you will receive from God and you will defeat all who bow before your will."
Saddam funds fail to buy Gaza hearts | World news | The Guardian
That looks like the right one....and the date fits also.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083862 wrote: That looks like the right one....and the date fits also.
You're aware, presumably, that the US gives around $3 billion a year in aid to Israel, and that the Israeli armed forces kill far more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis? The handout by Iraq was peanuts by comparison.
You're aware, presumably, that the US gives around $3 billion a year in aid to Israel, and that the Israeli armed forces kill far more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis? The handout by Iraq was peanuts by comparison.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Galbally;1083630 wrote: Actually the real headlines are unfortunately
A 13 Year old thug shoots a father dead with a glock 9mm handgun at point blank range, after egging his house in Dublin, and tormenting the man's family for months.
Organized heavily armed criminals turning Dublin and Limerick into cocaine fuelled gang-land battle zones
6,000 People lose their jobs before Christmas because of Pork Scare, Irish agriculture in crisis economically
The rest of the economy is already falling apart, and we're heading into the worst recession for 25 years at least.
Irish Government trying to mend the damage arising from the Lisbon Treaty referendum, and restore Ireland's position within the EU.
People pouring across the border to avail of cheap prices in Northern Ireland because of collapsing value of Sterling, the economies of border towns being decimated.
2009 Set to be a disasterous year for Ireland financially, economically, and socially
However, the christmas lights in Grafton Street are lovely.
I wish your quaint vision of Ireland based on Ballykissangel was the reality, unfortunately, we are a modern country with all the ills of modern life being visited upon us now with a vengence. I saw its time to go back to donkey's and potatoes actually as all this modern crap is rubbish.
Actually galbladder, i did read all of those, but I'm British so i never admit anything.:p
I was in fact very sorry to read about the guy who was 'lured' up the ally way to be shot by teenagers in the stomach after being subjected to anti-social behaviour by them. I thought at the time that i was saddened to see my fathers lovely Green home going the same way as the stinking pit i unfortunately reside in now.
As for the pork, that's your own fault.. Your suppossed to wrap the bread after you've made it not before you feed it to the pigs.
Anyway, i just thought you had written an article for The Time's about your love weapon.
:p:p:p:p
A 13 Year old thug shoots a father dead with a glock 9mm handgun at point blank range, after egging his house in Dublin, and tormenting the man's family for months.
Organized heavily armed criminals turning Dublin and Limerick into cocaine fuelled gang-land battle zones
6,000 People lose their jobs before Christmas because of Pork Scare, Irish agriculture in crisis economically
The rest of the economy is already falling apart, and we're heading into the worst recession for 25 years at least.
Irish Government trying to mend the damage arising from the Lisbon Treaty referendum, and restore Ireland's position within the EU.
People pouring across the border to avail of cheap prices in Northern Ireland because of collapsing value of Sterling, the economies of border towns being decimated.
2009 Set to be a disasterous year for Ireland financially, economically, and socially
However, the christmas lights in Grafton Street are lovely.
I wish your quaint vision of Ireland based on Ballykissangel was the reality, unfortunately, we are a modern country with all the ills of modern life being visited upon us now with a vengence. I saw its time to go back to donkey's and potatoes actually as all this modern crap is rubbish.
Actually galbladder, i did read all of those, but I'm British so i never admit anything.:p
I was in fact very sorry to read about the guy who was 'lured' up the ally way to be shot by teenagers in the stomach after being subjected to anti-social behaviour by them. I thought at the time that i was saddened to see my fathers lovely Green home going the same way as the stinking pit i unfortunately reside in now.
As for the pork, that's your own fault.. Your suppossed to wrap the bread after you've made it not before you feed it to the pigs.
Anyway, i just thought you had written an article for The Time's about your love weapon.
:p:p:p:p
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
You're aware, presumably, that the US gives around $3 billion a year in aid to Israel, and that the Israeli armed forces kill far more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis? The handout by Iraq was peanuts by comparison.
__________________
Thats not really the point. He was giving money to terrorists and that makes them stronger. And ...btw, the Israelis kill them because they are trying to kill Israelis.
__________________
Thats not really the point. He was giving money to terrorists and that makes them stronger. And ...btw, the Israelis kill them because they are trying to kill Israelis.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1083658 wrote: Well, unfortunatly we're the only western nation with enough guts to do that. Not now, not under Obama.
The Terror Orgs won.
Guts is excellent. But this battle against terrorism needs brains too. Winning a war of ideas, first and foremost. Like Galbally, I'm no peacenik, but nuking the whole world is not the answer. Though your sense of frustration is understandable.
I think the American military - together with their allies including the UK and Australia - were given by their political masters an impossible task, which they have carried out pretty well, considering what they are up against.
Mr Bush, for most of the world, now represents outright gung ho expansionist militarism. There's a vast ground of possibilities between this and limpwristed cop-out non-action. There's a lot a stake and I think the Western World is hopeful that a change of tack in America will work better.
The Terror Orgs won.
Guts is excellent. But this battle against terrorism needs brains too. Winning a war of ideas, first and foremost. Like Galbally, I'm no peacenik, but nuking the whole world is not the answer. Though your sense of frustration is understandable.
I think the American military - together with their allies including the UK and Australia - were given by their political masters an impossible task, which they have carried out pretty well, considering what they are up against.
Mr Bush, for most of the world, now represents outright gung ho expansionist militarism. There's a vast ground of possibilities between this and limpwristed cop-out non-action. There's a lot a stake and I think the Western World is hopeful that a change of tack in America will work better.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083867 wrote: You're aware, presumably, that the US gives around $3 billion a year in aid to Israel, and that the Israeli armed forces kill far more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis? The handout by Iraq was peanuts by comparison.
__________________
Thats not really the point. He was giving money to terrorists and that makes them stronger. And ...btw, the Israelis kill them because they are trying to kill Israelis.
You make too much of this terrorist label, you think it's the strongest card in the deck. Israel is the last remaining apartheid state, it should be ostracised not handed billions of dollars annually. What does the US do instead? Passes notification laws penalizing US companies who fail to notify their government if they're asked whether consignments contain any Israeli products. Why? Because trade embargoes bring down regimes when enough people want to see them brought down.
__________________
Thats not really the point. He was giving money to terrorists and that makes them stronger. And ...btw, the Israelis kill them because they are trying to kill Israelis.
You make too much of this terrorist label, you think it's the strongest card in the deck. Israel is the last remaining apartheid state, it should be ostracised not handed billions of dollars annually. What does the US do instead? Passes notification laws penalizing US companies who fail to notify their government if they're asked whether consignments contain any Israeli products. Why? Because trade embargoes bring down regimes when enough people want to see them brought down.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
spot;1083880 wrote: You make too much of this terrorist label, you think it's the strongest card in the deck. Israel is the last remaining apartheid state, it should be ostracised not handed billions of dollars annually. What does the US do instead? Passes notification laws penalizing US companies who fail to notify their government if they're asked whether consignments contain any Israeli products. Why? Because trade embargoes bring down regimes when enough people want to see them brought down.
What does this have to do with Saddam giving money to families of suicide bombers?
What does this have to do with Saddam giving money to families of suicide bombers?
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083886 wrote: What does this have to do with Saddam giving money to families of suicide bombers?
There was, if you read the article, only one family of a suicide bomber given any money.
I don't see any way for the Palestinian government to come to a just settlement with Israel. I don't see any will on the part of the Israeli government to come to a just settlement with the Palestinians. The reason they feel able to let things drift indefinitely is the financial support they get from the USA. Until there's a just settlement there will be outrages from both sides. I have no problem at all with Arab countries providing as much financial assistance to Palestine as they can give. Handing it to individuals is a mere publicity stunt though, it didn't have much of an effect.
On the other hand I had far less objection to Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq than I did over the US invasion, the subsequent kangaroo court, the refusal to allow him to be interviewed or to even speak in court without censorship, and his eventual handing over to the execution squad by which time the man's treatment had come close to that of Jesus, the parallels with the Gospels are eye-blinking.
There was, if you read the article, only one family of a suicide bomber given any money.
I don't see any way for the Palestinian government to come to a just settlement with Israel. I don't see any will on the part of the Israeli government to come to a just settlement with the Palestinians. The reason they feel able to let things drift indefinitely is the financial support they get from the USA. Until there's a just settlement there will be outrages from both sides. I have no problem at all with Arab countries providing as much financial assistance to Palestine as they can give. Handing it to individuals is a mere publicity stunt though, it didn't have much of an effect.
On the other hand I had far less objection to Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq than I did over the US invasion, the subsequent kangaroo court, the refusal to allow him to be interviewed or to even speak in court without censorship, and his eventual handing over to the execution squad by which time the man's treatment had come close to that of Jesus, the parallels with the Gospels are eye-blinking.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
spot;1083895 wrote: There was, if you read the article, only one family of a suicide bomber given any money.
I don't see any way for the Palestinian government to come to a just settlement with Israel. I don't see any will on the part of the Israeli government to come to a just settlement with the Palestinians. The reason they feel able to let things drift indefinitely is the financial support they get from the USA. Until there's a just settlement there will be outrages from both sides. I have no problem at all with Arab countries providing as much financial assistance to Palestine as they can give. Handing it to individuals is a mere publicity stunt though, it didn't have much of an effect.
On the other hand I had far less objection to Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq than I did over the US invasion, the subsequent kangaroo court, the refusal to allow him to be interviewed or to even speak in court without censorship, and his eventual handing over to the execution squad by which time the man's treatment had come close to that of Jesus, the parallels with the Gospels are eye-blinking.
OK...are you sitting down? I agree with almost all of your post...almost. (OMG, I am agreeing with Spot?) It was a kangaroo court, and he was "crucified". And there will be no settlement with Palestine and Israelis....it can never happen.
I do have a problem with funneling money to terrorists though....and Saddam was scum.
I don't see any way for the Palestinian government to come to a just settlement with Israel. I don't see any will on the part of the Israeli government to come to a just settlement with the Palestinians. The reason they feel able to let things drift indefinitely is the financial support they get from the USA. Until there's a just settlement there will be outrages from both sides. I have no problem at all with Arab countries providing as much financial assistance to Palestine as they can give. Handing it to individuals is a mere publicity stunt though, it didn't have much of an effect.
On the other hand I had far less objection to Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq than I did over the US invasion, the subsequent kangaroo court, the refusal to allow him to be interviewed or to even speak in court without censorship, and his eventual handing over to the execution squad by which time the man's treatment had come close to that of Jesus, the parallels with the Gospels are eye-blinking.
OK...are you sitting down? I agree with almost all of your post...almost. (OMG, I am agreeing with Spot?) It was a kangaroo court, and he was "crucified". And there will be no settlement with Palestine and Israelis....it can never happen.
I do have a problem with funneling money to terrorists though....and Saddam was scum.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083904 wrote: OK...are you sitting down? I agree with almost all of your post...almost. (OMG, I am agreeing with Spot?) It was a kangaroo court, and he was "crucified". And there will be no settlement with Palestine and Israelis....it can never happen.
I do have a problem with funneling money to terrorists though....and Saddam was scum.
We can easily deal with this, it's down to terminology. What I mean by the word terrorist is someone safe in a cockpit at 30,000 feet dropping several tons of high explosive into the centre of a city. That's terrorism. It's even designed to engender terror.
I do have a problem with funneling money to terrorists though....and Saddam was scum.
We can easily deal with this, it's down to terminology. What I mean by the word terrorist is someone safe in a cockpit at 30,000 feet dropping several tons of high explosive into the centre of a city. That's terrorism. It's even designed to engender terror.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
AP was 100% correct when she said "But this battle against terrorism needs brains too. Winning a war of ideas, first and foremost."
Exactly. NOT the application of a bigger gun (the American way?), but the application of a better brain.
What is needed is an up-dated version of the British "Hearts and minds" campaign during the Malaysian Emergency.
Exactly. NOT the application of a bigger gun (the American way?), but the application of a better brain.
What is needed is an up-dated version of the British "Hearts and minds" campaign during the Malaysian Emergency.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
spot;1083912 wrote: We can easily deal with this, it's down to terminology. What I mean by the word terrorist is someone safe in a cockpit at 30,000 feet dropping several tons of high explosive into the centre of a city. That's terrorism. It's even designed to engender terror.
You sure do know how to bend the chit out of a topic. Sorry but for the purpose of discussion you have to stick to commonly used definitions.
You sure do know how to bend the chit out of a topic. Sorry but for the purpose of discussion you have to stick to commonly used definitions.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083996 wrote: You sure do know how to bend the chit out of a topic. Sorry but for the purpose of discussion you have to stick to commonly used definitions.
What??
What??
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083996 wrote: You sure do know how to bend the chit out of a topic. Sorry but for the purpose of discussion you have to stick to commonly used definitions.
I'd love to. Please give me one.
I'd love to. Please give me one.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1084181 wrote: But it wont, I know it wont, it will prolong the enivitable. Bush isnt expansonist/imperialist thats a media lie, thats propaganda by the left wing radical m-moore gang. It's hogwash, We dont own Iraq, we are there to help put an end to fighting and help secure it, as it becomes more secure it will be handed over, well at least that was the plan, you can forget it now, Obama wont stick to the plan.
You guys get your way. I still hope it works but its wishful thinking at best.
Obama promised pre-election for with-drawal of American troops from Iraq. With the British announcing that all their troops barr 400 could be out as early as march, handing total control to America, his promise will be interesting to watch.
Once he is actually in the Whitehouse, i fear that pressure could see Obama break that promise.
It is madness for the entire coalition to pull out of Iraq leaving the Iraq people with an unstable government and damaged infrastructure. I can only see this rising and escalating to a far deadlier scale than Iraq is already in.
Watching Obama deal with this issue once Britain is out, will be most interesting.
You guys get your way. I still hope it works but its wishful thinking at best.
Obama promised pre-election for with-drawal of American troops from Iraq. With the British announcing that all their troops barr 400 could be out as early as march, handing total control to America, his promise will be interesting to watch.
Once he is actually in the Whitehouse, i fear that pressure could see Obama break that promise.
It is madness for the entire coalition to pull out of Iraq leaving the Iraq people with an unstable government and damaged infrastructure. I can only see this rising and escalating to a far deadlier scale than Iraq is already in.
Watching Obama deal with this issue once Britain is out, will be most interesting.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1084183 wrote: Removing saddam and controlling Iraq for a time was and is absolutely imperitive to the war on terror, leaving it secure and stable is also. All points duly noted, the war is not over its a campaign, its ongoing, its vital that it continue. But again I feel liek we are argueing pointlessly...
The war on terror is threw if we dont leave Iraq stable. And I gurantee you as soon as Obama takes over your gonna see US troops running like hell. The witrhdrawel will leave people with whiplash.
I agree that these debates are usually just arguments between people with entrenched views and positions. I am and always was against the Iraq war, but useful things can come from debate.
You mentioned that the invasion of Iraq was imperative in terms of the war on terror, why was Iraq so important?
How was holding and securing a country of 25 million people in the centre of the middle east indefinetly through military occupation ever going to be realistic? The costs alone would eventually be ruinous, as well as the strategic problem of having large numbers of US troops bogged down simply trying to maintain a semblence of Law and Order in Bagdad and its surrounding hinterland.
What was the actual end game envisioned at the end of the initial part of this war, where is the Iraq invasion and occupation supposed to lead? And how long do you think it will take to get there?
Why was unarmed secular, Baathist Iraq targeted and not Fundamentalist Islamicist Iran, which is actually developing Nuclear weapons?
Or Saudi Arabia, where the September 11th hijackers actually came from, the homeland of Bin Laden, the centre of Wahabbist sect, and where most of the money trail for Jihaddism linked to the Madrassa system leads?
Or Pakistan, where much of the support, sheltering, supply, and philosophy of Al Queda originates; shielded and nurtered by the Pakistani ISI intelligence service?
I haven't ever heard one convincing answer to any of these questions, from anyone in charge, ever.
The war on terror is threw if we dont leave Iraq stable. And I gurantee you as soon as Obama takes over your gonna see US troops running like hell. The witrhdrawel will leave people with whiplash.
I agree that these debates are usually just arguments between people with entrenched views and positions. I am and always was against the Iraq war, but useful things can come from debate.
You mentioned that the invasion of Iraq was imperative in terms of the war on terror, why was Iraq so important?
How was holding and securing a country of 25 million people in the centre of the middle east indefinetly through military occupation ever going to be realistic? The costs alone would eventually be ruinous, as well as the strategic problem of having large numbers of US troops bogged down simply trying to maintain a semblence of Law and Order in Bagdad and its surrounding hinterland.
What was the actual end game envisioned at the end of the initial part of this war, where is the Iraq invasion and occupation supposed to lead? And how long do you think it will take to get there?
Why was unarmed secular, Baathist Iraq targeted and not Fundamentalist Islamicist Iran, which is actually developing Nuclear weapons?
Or Saudi Arabia, where the September 11th hijackers actually came from, the homeland of Bin Laden, the centre of Wahabbist sect, and where most of the money trail for Jihaddism linked to the Madrassa system leads?
Or Pakistan, where much of the support, sheltering, supply, and philosophy of Al Queda originates; shielded and nurtered by the Pakistani ISI intelligence service?
I haven't ever heard one convincing answer to any of these questions, from anyone in charge, ever.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Galbally;1084273 wrote: I haven't ever heard one convincing answer to any of these questions, from anyone in charge, ever.
The article at Asia Times addresses, as far as I can see, all of them though I agree it's a critical analysis from an opponent of the plan. It does quote from the planners though, and points to the key documents where you can read what they were planning.
"What was the actual end game envisioned at the end of the initial part of this war, where is the Iraq invasion and occupation supposed to lead"? It's a domino theory:In July 1996, Perle, Feith and the Wurmser couple wrote the notorious paper for an Israeli think tank charting a roadmap for Likud superhawk and then-incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. The paper is called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". Perle, Feith and the Wurmsers tell Bibi that Israel must shelve the Oslo Accords, the so-called peace process, the concept of "land for peace", go for it and permanently annex the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The paper also recommends that Israel must insist on the elimination of Saddam, and the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. This would be the first domino to fall, and then regime change would follow in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia.The passage which he's discussing from from the report isSince Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq,including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging - through influence in the U.S. business community - investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon. .. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which - and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows - is King Hussein.We're well past the 2002/3 euphoria of people who thought this might actually happen, we're in an end game which has involved putting off withdrawal until someone else can be blamed for the consequences.
The article at Asia Times addresses, as far as I can see, all of them though I agree it's a critical analysis from an opponent of the plan. It does quote from the planners though, and points to the key documents where you can read what they were planning.
"What was the actual end game envisioned at the end of the initial part of this war, where is the Iraq invasion and occupation supposed to lead"? It's a domino theory:In July 1996, Perle, Feith and the Wurmser couple wrote the notorious paper for an Israeli think tank charting a roadmap for Likud superhawk and then-incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. The paper is called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". Perle, Feith and the Wurmsers tell Bibi that Israel must shelve the Oslo Accords, the so-called peace process, the concept of "land for peace", go for it and permanently annex the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The paper also recommends that Israel must insist on the elimination of Saddam, and the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. This would be the first domino to fall, and then regime change would follow in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia.The passage which he's discussing from from the report isSince Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq,including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging - through influence in the U.S. business community - investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon. .. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which - and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows - is King Hussein.We're well past the 2002/3 euphoria of people who thought this might actually happen, we're in an end game which has involved putting off withdrawal until someone else can be blamed for the consequences.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
If you unilaterally choose to be the world's policeman you can expect to be universally loathed until you go home and stop doing it. Absolutely nobody outside of the USA wants it doing.
It's why we set up rules that aggressive war was a war crime - the US actually had a hand establishing that court ruling at Nuremberg - and that regime change was an unlawful reason for interfering in the internal affairs of an independent country. The US got away with that one too many times and then went one step too far.
It's time to regroup and rethink. The US has completely screwed up over the last eight years.
It's why we set up rules that aggressive war was a war crime - the US actually had a hand establishing that court ruling at Nuremberg - and that regime change was an unlawful reason for interfering in the internal affairs of an independent country. The US got away with that one too many times and then went one step too far.
It's time to regroup and rethink. The US has completely screwed up over the last eight years.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1084445 wrote: Ladies and gentleman I give you the great Fuhrer Barack Obama! Have fun.
Don't blame me, I tried hard to persuade people to vote Republican for an entire year leading into the election simply to avoid this hand-washing it's-not-our-fault conclusion.
Don't blame me, I tried hard to persuade people to vote Republican for an entire year leading into the election simply to avoid this hand-washing it's-not-our-fault conclusion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Jester;1084410 wrote: Strategic location, wedged between Syria and Iran. The newer strategy in the war on terror is to locate the cells and destroy them, on order to do that, you need to provoke them to fight in the open. The war in Iraq forced them to do that. It was an opportunity to both remove saddam and provoke the players. It worked too well.
I dont believe we invisioned it taking this long, there was never supposed to be an occupation lasting more than 3 years, there were those of us who were in Iraq before the invasion and we did pass the intel up the chain, we knew there would be a wide spread security nightmare post initial liberation. There was a plan to subdue the main military and it worked brilliantly, what failed was the ongoing insurgency, it was grossly underestimated. We also had agreements with different clerics prior to the invasion then afterward they reniged on thier agreements. To be honest with you we trusted people inside Iraq and those relationships failed, my personal belief is that had those clerics reamined committed to a new iraq, we'd have accomplished the three year plan and the UN would be there now. However I will add that in my opinon Iraq would be plit in about 7 different regions over time, no matter what we did, or how stable we leave iraqm even if the plan worked.
Read my above statement for part of the answer on this, but also right now Iraq needs ten years of continued security in my opinion, a generation needs to grow from early teens to young adulthood in a releatively safe invironment for Iraq to ever have hope of stability. Thats the reality now.
Thats an excellent question, militarily speaking Id have MOAB/nuked every one of Irans military installations for the three months prior to the invasion of Iraq. I would have set up the no fly zone inside Iran for 20 miles of the continuous border as well.
I have no answer for you on this one.
Again, I'd bomb any region where I had intel that a terror group is hiding, period.
Im no official, but thats the best I can do.
Well I thank you for giving me straight answers on what you believe. I still believe that invading Iraq was completely the wrong long-term strategy, it was a bad idea from the start; and thats my own (less informed) opinion on the primary reason why it has backfired, but no one doubts that the initial victory against the Iraqi army and the invasion itself was a complete military success. I don't actually believe that the objections of countries like France were based on pacifism or anti-Americanism, but on a fear of what the consequences of the war might eventually be, the end point of engaging in the wrong direction.
Also I don't doubt that the people in the US and British military who were tasked with the military side of this did the best they could to carry out the orders they were given. What I question is the basic political and strategic premise that these orders were based on, and that is a question only people at the very top can really answer.
Also I take on board what you are saying about some of the specific reasons why the occupation has been ongoing for so long, but unable to really bring stability or security. I think obviously given the nature of what has happened in Iraq, its unrealistic to expect people to not get heated about the consequences of 2003, I am glad to be able to have a sober discussion about it.
In terms of the future, I think we are in agreement about what's going to happen to Iraq itself long-term; it will break apart after a civil war once the US forces withdraw, after that, I don't know, its too complicated, in general; its not going to be a good situation. The bleak question the US administration has now is how to minimize the consequences to itself and Iraq from the inevitable withdrawl that is going to happen.
I dont believe we invisioned it taking this long, there was never supposed to be an occupation lasting more than 3 years, there were those of us who were in Iraq before the invasion and we did pass the intel up the chain, we knew there would be a wide spread security nightmare post initial liberation. There was a plan to subdue the main military and it worked brilliantly, what failed was the ongoing insurgency, it was grossly underestimated. We also had agreements with different clerics prior to the invasion then afterward they reniged on thier agreements. To be honest with you we trusted people inside Iraq and those relationships failed, my personal belief is that had those clerics reamined committed to a new iraq, we'd have accomplished the three year plan and the UN would be there now. However I will add that in my opinon Iraq would be plit in about 7 different regions over time, no matter what we did, or how stable we leave iraqm even if the plan worked.
Read my above statement for part of the answer on this, but also right now Iraq needs ten years of continued security in my opinion, a generation needs to grow from early teens to young adulthood in a releatively safe invironment for Iraq to ever have hope of stability. Thats the reality now.
Thats an excellent question, militarily speaking Id have MOAB/nuked every one of Irans military installations for the three months prior to the invasion of Iraq. I would have set up the no fly zone inside Iran for 20 miles of the continuous border as well.
I have no answer for you on this one.
Again, I'd bomb any region where I had intel that a terror group is hiding, period.
Im no official, but thats the best I can do.
Well I thank you for giving me straight answers on what you believe. I still believe that invading Iraq was completely the wrong long-term strategy, it was a bad idea from the start; and thats my own (less informed) opinion on the primary reason why it has backfired, but no one doubts that the initial victory against the Iraqi army and the invasion itself was a complete military success. I don't actually believe that the objections of countries like France were based on pacifism or anti-Americanism, but on a fear of what the consequences of the war might eventually be, the end point of engaging in the wrong direction.
Also I don't doubt that the people in the US and British military who were tasked with the military side of this did the best they could to carry out the orders they were given. What I question is the basic political and strategic premise that these orders were based on, and that is a question only people at the very top can really answer.
Also I take on board what you are saying about some of the specific reasons why the occupation has been ongoing for so long, but unable to really bring stability or security. I think obviously given the nature of what has happened in Iraq, its unrealistic to expect people to not get heated about the consequences of 2003, I am glad to be able to have a sober discussion about it.
In terms of the future, I think we are in agreement about what's going to happen to Iraq itself long-term; it will break apart after a civil war once the US forces withdraw, after that, I don't know, its too complicated, in general; its not going to be a good situation. The bleak question the US administration has now is how to minimize the consequences to itself and Iraq from the inevitable withdrawl that is going to happen.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
Galbally;1084510 wrote: I don't actually believe that the objections of countries like France were based on pacifism or anti-Americanism, but on a fear of what the consequences of the war might eventually be of engaging on the wrong direction. The other aspect of the objections was the establishing of a precedent for military regime change in the absence of any immediate external threat.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
spot;1084514 wrote: The other aspect of the objections was the establishing of a precedent for military regime change in the absence of any immediate external threat.
Yes, also a very valid concern which has long term repercussions.
Yes, also a very valid concern which has long term repercussions.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
We Won ... The Iraq War Is Over.
wildhorses;1083720 wrote: I am not going to do your research for you. Go google it yourself
You made the claim - now back it up or it is meaningless waffle.
You made the claim - now back it up or it is meaningless waffle.