Discussion:
This is the way Americans 'fix' other Nations
(too old to reply)
Werewolfy
2009-10-25 20:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Tell me your bloody war was all 'worth it' then.

Werewolfy


Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years

Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.

By Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent
Published: 6:32PM GMT 25 Oct 2009

Another 500 were wounded when the bombs targeting government buildings
exploded in quick succession.

The attacks appeared to represent a statement of intent by Iraq’s
increasingly emboldened insurgent groups after recent predictions of a
new wave of violence with the intention of disrupting elections
planned for January.

Iraqi MPs missed a deadline last week to pass an election law
required to hold the poll, raising the prospect of a damaging delay
that contravenes the constitution.

The decision brought with it warnings of a backlash by insurgents
seeking to exploit the political vacuum and damage the reputation of
Nouri al-Maliki, the pro-American prime minister. In a phone call to
Mr Maliki on Sunday, President Barack Obama described the bombings as
“outrageous” and said they were an attempt to derail progress in
Iraq.

Although there was no immediate claim of responsibility, the Iraqi
government was quick to blame the attacks on al-Qaeda or remnants of
Saddam Hussein’s party.

“The initial analysis shows it bears the fingerprints of al-Qaeda and
the Ba’athists,” said Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman, who was
showered in glass after windows in a hotel he was visiting shattered
from the force of the blast.

For many Iraqis, the attacks were a chilling reminder of their country
as it once was - and perhaps a harbinger of things to come if the
elections are not held on time.

A pall of smoke hung above the city as flames enveloped whole
buildings. On the streets cars that had been tossed in the air by the
power of the explosion lay piled on top each other in pyramids of
twisted metal.

Stagnant water disgorged onto the streets by sewage pipes ripped open
by the blast washed over charred and mangled corpses.

So intense was the heat generated by the bombs, which targeted the
justice ministry and a nearby provincial government building, that
firemen said that many of the dead were too hot to touch.

Although the number of major attacks both in the capital city and
elsewhere in the country dropped significantly since the US military
surge of 2007, this was the second attack of such magnitude in Baghdad
in the last three months.

Nearly 100 people were killed in bombings on the foreign and finance
ministries in August.

But even the calm has been deceptive. Lawlessness remains pervasive
across the country, a fact exemplified by one incident in the
aftermath of Sunday’s bombings.

As police sought to secure the perimeter of the scene, they heard a
frantic banging from the boot of a damaged car with two corpses in the
passenger seats.

Inside, officers discovered a man who had been bundled into the boot
of the car after being seized from the streets earlier that day. Such
kidnappings remain common in Iraq.

The deadliest toll in a terrorist strike in Iraq since the invasion
was in August 2007, when more than 400 people were slaughtered by four
co-ordinated suicide truck bombs targeting the Yazidi religious sect
in Kurdish northern Iraq
Steven Douglas
2009-10-25 21:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Tell me your bloody war was all 'worth it' then.
Which Americans do you expect to tell you that?

Doc? He hates all war (including our involvement in a couple of rather
large European wars).

John? He's voiced his opposition to the Iraq War from the start.

Woods? She's always been against the Iraq War.

Dani? She's been against the Iraq War from the start as well.

Is there someone in particular to whom you'd like to address your
question?
Werewolfy
2009-10-25 21:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Is there someone in particular to whom you'd like to address your
question?
No. It was a general observation. Randy type people who advocate
'shoot'em all', and all swaggering Americans who believe they can 'do
as they wish' with the World, grace a la puissance militaire.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-25 21:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
Is there someone in particular to whom you'd like to address your
question?
No. It was a general observation. Randy type people who advocate
'shoot'em all', and all swaggering Americans who believe they can 'do
as they wish' with the World, grace a la puissance militaire.
We had a lot of other countries at our side, including yours.
John Lemke
2009-10-25 21:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Tell me your bloody war was all 'worth it' then.
Which Americans do you expect to tell you that?
Doc? He hates all war (including our involvement in a couple of rather
large European wars).
John? He's voiced his opposition to the Iraq War from the start.
Woods? She's always been against the Iraq War.
Dani? She's been against the Iraq War from the start as well.
Is there someone in particular to whom you'd like to address your
question?
Oddly enough I recall a number of British troops involved in the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, Steve.

Maybe Ricky's forgotten about that since his country have retired and
gone home to jolly Ol'......................
Werewolfy
2009-10-25 22:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Lemke
Oddly enough I recall a number of British troops involved in the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, Steve.
Maybe Ricky's forgotten about that since his country have retired and
gone home to jolly Ol'......................-
Not needed. No reason to say that. I couldn't care if Martians were
also involved..it would still have been wrong. Britain helping with
the invasion was wrong...

So what?.....You suddenly seem nice and friendly with Steven, by-the-
way. You wouldn't be 'using allies' when under attak...would you?

Werewolfy
John Lemke
2009-10-25 22:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by John Lemke
Oddly enough I recall a number of British troops involved in the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, Steve.
Maybe Ricky's forgotten about that since his country have retired and
gone home to jolly Ol'......................-
Not needed. No reason to say that. I couldn't care if Martians were
also involved..it would still have been wrong. Britain helping with
the invasion was wrong...
But you'd only mentioned America.
Post by Werewolfy
So what?.....
So you have this propensity for weakly and unrealistically assigning
blame. Seems to be a national trait. Like blaming guns instead of
people, blaming knives instead of people, blaming glass mugs instead
of people.

Inanimate objects and Americans backed by British troops make the
world a very scary place.

Before long people over the age of 12 won't have any teeth in England
because of the biting threat. They'll have to have their dentures
registered and kept in safes until the predetermined eating hours.
Anyone caught with teeth in their mouths will face stiff prison
sentences.

People will be persuaded to conform to the law because of the smiling
threat.
Post by Werewolfy
You suddenly seem nice and friendly with Steven, by-the-
way. You wouldn't be 'using allies' when under attak...would you?
Really, do you also think you've been attacking someone? I've only
made one post in this thread.

Jumping the gun again, Master Interrogator?
Werewolfy
2009-10-26 01:35:19 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Oct, 22:24, John Lemke <***@locallink.net> wrote:

"So you have this propensity for weakly and unrealistically assigning
blame."

It is neither 'weak', nor is it 'unrealistic'.

Were you hiding in your fucking bunker as America searched for reasons
to invade Iraq, and allies to 'support' them..or more to the point,
allies not to oppose them?

A.M.E.R.I.C.A. B.U.S.H.

Blair was a puppet, other Nations mainly sent medical help, not troops
to fight.

YOUR war-mongering President, and YOUR war mongering Nation brokered
the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

YOUR friend Randy cheered it all on. YOUR fellow inmates of the
lunatic asylum you call 'The greatest Country in the World' waved
their gaudy bunting and screamed in delight as your Military blew up
Iraqi people from the safety of an aircraft, of from the sea.

Blair was wrong, stupid and enjoyed the power that proximity to Bush
gave him. Blair was wrong too.

The war was the fucking work of A.M.E.R.I.C.A.

Stupid fucking bastard.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-26 16:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
"So you have this propensity for weakly and unrealistically assigning
blame."
It is neither 'weak', nor is it 'unrealistic'.
Were you hiding in your fucking bunker as America searched for reasons
to invade Iraq, and allies to 'support' them..or more to the point,
allies not to oppose them?
A.M.E.R.I.C.A.    B.U.S.H.
Blair was a puppet, other Nations mainly sent medical help, not troops
to fight.
YOUR war-mongering President, and YOUR war mongering Nation brokered
the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
I'm not sure why you're badgering John about this. He's been
expressing that point of view for years already.
Post by Werewolfy
YOUR friend Randy cheered it all on. YOUR fellow inmates of the
lunatic asylum you call 'The greatest Country in the World' waved
their gaudy bunting and screamed in delight as your Military blew up
Iraqi people from the safety of an aircraft, of from the sea.
Blair was wrong, stupid and enjoyed the power that proximity to Bush
gave him. Blair was wrong too.
Here's a unique point of view that is rarely (if ever) heard. I've
always wondered how Bush could be the complete imbecile moron that
leftists say he is, yet he's also the greatest master manipulator of
all time. How do the two fit together? Can anyone explain that for me?

Opinion - Brendan O’Neill
Headline: "Is Bush Blair's poodle?"

[quoting] The Bush administration is heir to the ‘humanitarian
warfare’ masterminded by arch-interventionist Tony Blair.

[excerpt] It is worth remembering that Blair, often in tandem with
Clinton, was executing bloody interventions before his alleged
‘master’ Bush entered the White House. He was a key architect of the
NATO-led Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999. He sent British troops to
Sierra Leone in 2000. And he had already bombed Iraq on the dubious
grounds that it had WMD that posed a threat to world peace in 1998, a
full five years before doing so again with Bush in 2003.

These interventions do not only show that Blair is more than capable
of launching wars without first being schmoozed by Bush over a beer in
his Texan ranch – they were also a blueprint for Bush’s later wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Blair, together with Clinton, wrote the script
for today’s new forms of humanitarian intervention, which profess to
be about delivering democracy, upholding human rights or liberating
people from tyrannical regimes. Bush is lambasted for two aspects of
his foreign policy in particular: for his naive and pseudo-religious
view that the world can be split into Good and Evil, and for his
cavalier attitude towards state sovereignty and the authority of the
United Nations. Both of these traits he inherited from the Blair era
of humanitarian warfare. [end excerpt]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1316/
Doc
2009-10-26 00:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Tell me your bloody war was all 'worth it' then.
Which Americans do you expect to tell you that?

Doc? He hates all war (including our involvement in a couple of rather
large European wars).

Hating war? What a horrid thought for you, eh?! There's just gotta be a few
we'd not want to hate. LOL!


Woods? She's always been against the Iraq War.

Dani? She's been against the Iraq War from the start as well.

Is there someone in particular to whom you'd like to address your
question?
Steven Douglas
2009-10-26 16:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Tell me your bloody war was all 'worth it' then.
Which Americans do you expect to tell you that?
Doc? He hates all war (including our involvement in a couple of rather
large European wars).
Hating war? What a horrid thought for you, eh?! There's just gotta be a few
we'd not want to hate. LOL!
I hate war, Doc. But I hate evil people more than I hate war. You, on
the other hand, hate war more than you hate evil people. Therefore, if
it was left up to you (and people who think like you), tyranny would
rule the world.
Doc
2009-10-26 17:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Tell me your bloody war was all 'worth it' then.
Which Americans do you expect to tell you that?
Doc? He hates all war (including our involvement in a couple of rather
large European wars).
Hating war? What a horrid thought for you, eh?! There's just gotta be a few
we'd not want to hate. LOL!
I hate war, Doc. But I hate evil people more than I hate war. You, on
the other hand, hate war more than you hate evil people. Therefore, if
it was left up to you (and people who think like you), tyranny would
rule the world.

Greed, power seeking, and lies largely rule it today.
Humanity has never been rid of tyranny in all its varieties, not will it be,
as long as human behavior doesn't markedly change.
Whether you 'hate' war, or 'love' it, has no bearing, in itself, on the
mechanizations of the greed, lies, and power obsessions of the elite,
junior.
As long as such behavior exists, war will exist.
It matters not whether a particular leader tyrannizes for a short time or a
long time.
In the larger scheme, getting rid of one notable fascistic leader, only
leaves others that exist less noticeably.
It is more a matter of existentialism. Personal responsibility, including
taking sacrifices, to wholly change one's own behavior is the key to the end
of tyrants.
Once people no longer act like gullible, scared sheep, they can eventually
rid their lives of tyrants.
It is not up to military force to rid our species of totalitarianism.
Killing and destroying only acts as a temporary relief.
The permanent answer is gaining an awareness of not being codependent to
authority, but to be one's own 'decider' and 'leader'.
All human leadership requires a kind of faith and subservience, and within
that attitude, always exists the opportunity for abuse by leaders.
We see it in our nation, as we see it in others.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-10-27 02:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
I hate war, Doc. But I hate evil people more than I hate war. You, on
the other hand, hate war more than you hate evil people. Therefore, if
it was left up to you (and people who think like you), tyranny would
rule the world.
Greed, power seeking, and lies largely rule it today.
Humanity has never been rid of tyranny in all its varieties, not will it be,
as long as human behavior doesn't markedly change.
Whether you 'hate' war, or 'love' it, has no bearing, in itself, on the
It does have bearing, because I don't "love" war, Doc. I hate war.
It's unfortunate that war is sometimes necessary to stop evil people.
It's even more unfortunate that there are people like you in this
world who enable evil by refusing to fight it. If pacifists had their
way, tyranny would rule the world.
Doc
2009-10-27 10:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
I hate war, Doc. But I hate evil people more than I hate war. You, on
the other hand, hate war more than you hate evil people. Therefore, if
it was left up to you (and people who think like you), tyranny would
rule the world.
Greed, power seeking, and lies largely rule it today.
Humanity has never been rid of tyranny in all its varieties, not will it be,
as long as human behavior doesn't markedly change.
Whether you 'hate' war, or 'love' it, has no bearing, in itself, on the
It does have bearing, because I don't "love" war, Doc. I hate war.
It's unfortunate that war is sometimes necessary to stop evil people.
It's even more unfortunate that there are people like you in this
world who enable evil by refusing to fight it. If pacifists had their
way, tyranny would rule the world.
Tyranny does rule the world, Cinderella, since power-struggles are decided
by a dominant force, without democratic input from the dominated. You can
argue the dominant force of the USA is preferable to any other, but it is
domination nonetheless. Iraqis did not 'vote' to end US military domination;
the US just decided on its own. They did not vote on having the US invade
and remove Saddam. In fact, the UNSC didn't decide it, either. Our authority
came from our own motives.
That is the way of the species, unfortunately -- to subscribe to a system, a
lifestyle, a belief, that its adherents think should be the norm for all
others. And then they set about trying to make it so.
Whether they use economic "cooperation" as a candy bar to entice, or simply
use rationales for military invasions, it is still the intent of the
stronger to influence the weaker.
If you take a close hard look at this dominant national power, you will see
that it is terribly flawed with lies, greed, stupidity, and arrogance.
Within that misbehavior, is the gist of human evil, junior.
So, sending a bunch of polished combat boots out to stomp out the dirt of
human evil, is to send out people who feel they have something better to
offer, as they kill loved ones en masse, whether or not the recipients
really chose to have it. They've undemocratically decided that a particular
evil must be destroyed, even if it usually causes many innocents to
'collaterially' die. Dead loved ones fuel anger and resistance, no matter
what the rationales the invaders promote.
It is the will of the superior-feeling among us, who think they are such,
and move to have all others feel the "enlightenment" they mistakenly,
delusionally think they have.
Tyranny comes in so many blatant and subtle forms, but it is more accurately
the will of those who think they are morally superior that justifies their
use of coercion and violence to rid the rest of humanity of inferiority.
I see no difference between America's arrogance and domination than Nazi's
or fascists have attempted to exert on the world. A 'difference of opinion'
and perspective causes resistance in the form of terrorism. One ideology
feels it must prevail over all others it feels are inferior and threatening.
Yet, all humans are imbedded with much evil, and moral failures and
personality struggles even within each individual rage on around the clock.
We can temporarily allay that internal unrelenting derision with brief
moments of sparkling moralistic military crusades. But, they, too, have
temporary results. Evil prevails, as it always has in its many forms.
So, it is evil moving against evil disguised as advancements in systems they
promote as preferable for all to embrace, whether they want to or not. It is
always rightfully the final responsiblity of each sovereign nation, or
culture, of every citizen, to decide what they will have as a government, a
lifestyle, a belief, etc.
It is NOT up to an evil entity that calls itself a liberator, outside their
system, that says to them they must sacrifice for its superior system they
wish to impose on it.
When fascism was defeated, supposedly, in WW2, it began to grow and fester
in the USA shortly afterward, fueled by rabid fears, social conformity, and
subservience to authority.
If Iraqis, for example, wanted Saddam out so badly, junior, they'd mustered
the capability to do so, and if they wanted democracy, they'd chosen it on
their own, without massive death rained down on them from a morally confused
foreign invader who tells them and us varying reasons for its mass killing.
We're not making any lasting friends with this kind of absurd dominating
foreign policy, nor did we make any with a tragic shift to military
preemptive policy.
We're on the wrong road, junior, the road to Hell. And the next decade will
decide whether we continue stumbling down it, or begin to have the balls and
brains to admit our path has been a crooked one, and work with nations to
straighten it out.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-10-27 12:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Whether you 'hate' war, or 'love' it, has no bearing, in itself, on the
It does have bearing, because I don't "love" war, Doc. I hate war.
It's unfortunate that war is sometimes necessary to stop evil people.
It's even more unfortunate that there are people like you in this
world who enable evil by refusing to fight it. If pacifists had their
way, tyranny would rule the world.
Tyranny does rule the world
Not to the extent it once did. There are more democracies and fewer
tyrannies in the world today than there were thirty years ago. That
didn't happen by accident.
Steven Douglas
2009-10-25 21:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
Werewolfy
2009-10-25 21:26:19 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Oct, 21:15, Steven Douglas <***@rocketmail.com>
wrote:

"Their tactic is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission."

Agreed.

I'm not especially 'au courrant' with World affairs, Steven, but to
me, the 'result' was inevitable. Iraq is a volatile mix of tribes and
aspirations.
Invasion of the Country was foolish. The outcome, inevitable. One
'Saddam' removed, another to take his place. America cannot rule by
force of military.
As in Vietnam, so many dead soldiers...and for what?

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-25 21:51:30 UTC
Permalink
"Their tactic  is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission."
Agreed.
I'm not especially 'au courrant' with World affairs, Steven, but to
me, the 'result' was inevitable. Iraq is a volatile mix of tribes and
aspirations.
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
Invasion of the Country was foolish. The outcome, inevitable.
This isn't the outcome. The outcome is the democracy that is taking
hold in Iraq. The outcome is that Iraqi security forces have taken the
lead in security there. At the time the Iraqis took the lead in their
own security, it was known by everyone that these types of attacks
would continue for some time. As with all terrorists, these terrorists
don't care about the will of the Iraqi people. Just the opposite, in
fact.
One
'Saddam' removed, another to take his place. America cannot rule by
force of military.
As in Vietnam, so many dead soldiers...and for what?
We didn't lose in Vietnam. We gave up. I hope that's not the final
result in Iraq.
Werewolfy
2009-10-25 21:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
Disagree.

This is the result.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-25 22:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
Disagree.
This is the result.
Let's see what happens with the January elections. If the terrorists
are able to paralyze the country and prevent those elections from
taking place, that will be the result. Until then, this is just a
desperate attempt to undermine the Iraqi democracy.
Woodswun
2009-10-26 01:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
Disagree.
This is the result.
Let's see what happens with the January elections. If the terrorists
are able to paralyze the country and prevent those elections from
taking place, that will be the result. Until then, this is just a
desperate attempt to undermine the Iraqi democracy.
I think we will see attacks continue, regardless of how the elections
turn out or whether they go forward. You seem to think that there are
some kind of rules that people follow when they want to grab power,
but the problem is that people who want to grab power usually do NOT
follow rules.

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-10-26 16:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
Disagree.
This is the result.
Let's see what happens with the January elections. If the terrorists
are able to paralyze the country and prevent those elections from
taking place, that will be the result. Until then, this is just a
desperate attempt to undermine the Iraqi democracy.
I think we will see attacks continue, regardless of how the elections
turn out or whether they go forward.  You seem to think that there are
some kind of rules that people follow when they want to grab power,
but the problem is that people who want to grab power usually do NOT
follow rules.
No kidding? That's why there is war. If not for wars to stop evil
people, tyranny would rule the world.
Doc
2009-10-26 00:03:06 UTC
Permalink
"Their tactic is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission."
Agreed.
I'm not especially 'au courrant' with World affairs, Steven, but to
me, the 'result' was inevitable. Iraq is a volatile mix of tribes and
aspirations.
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
Invasion of the Country was foolish. The outcome, inevitable.
This isn't the outcome. The outcome is the democracy that is taking
hold in Iraq. The outcome is that Iraqi security forces have taken the
lead in security there. At the time the Iraqis took the lead in their
own security, it was known by everyone that these types of attacks
would continue for some time. As with all terrorists, these terrorists
don't care about the will of the Iraqi people. Just the opposite, in
fact.
One
'Saddam' removed, another to take his place. America cannot rule by
force of military.
As in Vietnam, so many dead soldiers...and for what?
We didn't lose in Vietnam. We gave up. I hope that's not the final
result in Iraq.

We lost whatever sanity we had when we used the insignificant Gulf of
Tonkin incident as justification for a full-blown military invasion and
occupation.
And then we attempted to justify our presence by playing with a theory of
"commie dominos" in SE Asia.
When that looked futile, we kept clinging to the hallow cheerleading sound
of "protecting the Saigon government" -- and ignored the fact it was all a
civil war to begin with.
And what were we to do, soldier boy? Stay in Nam for decades protecting one
side of a civil war from the other?
Well, had we done that, we would've had to learn how to equally fight
underground, and today we'd be crawling through hundreds of miles of tunnels
all the way to Hanoi.
You fucking idiot.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-10-26 16:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
We lost whatever sanity we had when we used the insignificant Gulf of
Tonkin incident as justification for a full-blown military invasion and
occupation.
And then we attempted to justify our presence by playing with a theory of
"commie dominos" in SE Asia.
When that looked futile, we kept clinging to the hallow cheerleading sound
of  "protecting the Saigon government" -- and ignored the fact it was all a
civil war to begin with.
And what were we to do, soldier boy? Stay in Nam for decades protecting one
side of a civil war from the other?
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Doc
2009-10-26 18:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
We lost whatever sanity we had when we used the insignificant Gulf of
Tonkin incident as justification for a full-blown military invasion and
occupation.
And then we attempted to justify our presence by playing with a theory of
"commie dominos" in SE Asia.
When that looked futile, we kept clinging to the hallow cheerleading sound
of "protecting the Saigon government" -- and ignored the fact it was all a
civil war to begin with.
And what were we to do, soldier boy? Stay in Nam for decades protecting one
side of a civil war from the other?
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973.

South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.

Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
After 58,000 Americans died, and the nation was torn ideologically (which
obviously still continues), the USSR collapsed in the next decade, and
further Western investment poured into China to strengthen it.
Viet Nam now moves toward a capitalistically-based international
marketplace, that'll spur more Western investment there.
What began as a weak, overblown crisis at sea, and a later disproved
dominoes theory of communist takeover, has migrated toward an outcome,
without further US military intervention, of a new state of affairs in Nam
more desirable.
That the people in the South have never again risen up to oppose communist
tyranny, despite plenty of time and opportunity, is testament to the grim
fact that people will accept considerable restrictions in order to protect
their asses.
Personal responsibility is the real key to ridding ourselves of tyranny,
junior, and that entails sacrifice, awareness, and courage. Invading armies
only change the situation temporarily.
In Korea, a decades-old stalemate has produced great dividends to the West
in investments, while using the North as a distraction to the overwhelming
capitalistic greed and corruption in the South.
That war resolved nothing. Nam resolved nothing. Iraq and Afghanistan teeter
on the same hard eventual outcome. Invasions not necessary to protecting the
invaders' direct security only result in messy results.
Fighting wars for ideological satisfaction alone, are a form of tyrannizing.
Intervening nations' soldiers die in foreign lands for the lack of
motivation of sovereign people to take full responsibility to change their
situation.
As long as we engage in such nonsense, we'll always be mired in senseless
futile warfare, and always have fools like you cheerleading them. It is not
that you cheer it exclusively for a 'win', or glory, or ideological
reaffirmation, junior, it is that you simply get your pickle up with the
self-satisfying sick excitement of it. And therein rests the worst kind of
evil. Insidious and smiling, justifiable with invalid rationales, and coated
with "patriotic" frosting. Go to Google and call up some more rationales for
your warmongering, and your lying to (thinly) cover it.
Don't bother with hoping we'll forget your support for imperialistic
hegemony, economic, warfaring, or otherwise, or your cherry picking
snottiness with our own economic hellhole.
NO, let us all begin anew everyday, like you, on the privileged activity of
the blessed internet, where psychotic folks like you derive their daily
ideological sustenance from obsessively rehaping reality and history.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-10-27 02:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Post by Doc
After 58,000 Americans died, and the nation was torn ideologically (which
obviously still continues), the USSR collapsed in the next decade, and
further Western investment poured into China to strengthen it.
That has nothing to do with what I wrote above.
Post by Doc
Viet Nam now moves toward a capitalistically-based international
marketplace, that'll spur more Western investment there.
What began as a weak, overblown crisis at sea, and a later disproved
dominoes theory of communist takeover, has migrated toward an outcome,
without further US military intervention, of a new state of affairs in Nam
more desirable.
That the people in the South have never again risen up to oppose communist
tyranny, despite plenty of time and opportunity, is testament to the grim
fact that people will accept considerable restrictions in order to protect
their asses.
You really have no idea what tyranny is, do you, you naive pacifist?
You sit there and take your freedom for granted, as if it is the
natural order of things in this world. You're pathetic.
Doc
2009-10-27 10:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.

Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
Communism is that civil conflict was no direct threat to our security,
junior. You miss the damned boat of logic and national purpose. We're not
here to engage our forces in other internal disputes unless they outwardly
threaten us. The Gulf of
Tonkin was a fiasco, a ruse, junior. The dominoes theory was a fucking
farce. Massive bombing of the North on and around Hanoi only strenghtened
their anger and resolve to repel us, if it took every last man and woman,
and decades more. And it would've gone on for decades, with no appreciable
gain for us.
It was their war, and their war alone, you warmongering rat fuck.
Post by Doc
After 58,000 Americans died, and the nation was torn ideologically (which
obviously still continues), the USSR collapsed in the next decade, and
further Western investment poured into China to strengthen it.
That has nothing to do with what I wrote above.

It has eveything to do with it. The final outcome made us look even more
absurd for invading. What was hailed as resistance against an evil and
spreading ideology and national entities, came out to be, instead, an
appeasement by a conservative President, opening up relations with RED
China. LOL! And later, another conservative horses' ass, becoming friendly
with the 'evil empire' of Russia. LOL! And now we see Vietnam being courted
by western (and other) corporate and governmental leaders. What did those
58,000 dead die for, junior?
To defeat the spread of communism? LOL!!!!
That's what they were told, and yet your conservative leaders, two of 'em,
palled around with them for mutual profits.
You fucking idiot.
Post by Doc
Viet Nam now moves toward a capitalistically-based international
marketplace, that'll spur more Western investment there.
What began as a weak, overblown crisis at sea, and a later disproved
dominoes theory of communist takeover, has migrated toward an outcome,
without further US military intervention, of a new state of affairs in Nam
more desirable.
That the people in the South have never again risen up to oppose communist
tyranny, despite plenty of time and opportunity, is testament to the grim
fact that people will accept considerable restrictions in order to protect
their asses.
You really have no idea what tyranny is, do you, you naive pacifist?
You sit there and take your freedom for granted, as if it is the
natural order of things in this world. You're pathetic.

Oh yes, I do, junior. It is you who has a weak concept of it. You see
domination of our ideology as preferable. But all dominations are resented
by sovereign people.
It is up to them to decide their fate, not us.
Not you.
I take nothing for granted.
Anything we've worked for laboriously for a long time can be ended tomorrow.
And history distressingly proves it.
We're not carving into the ideological Rock of Gibraltar every day our will
and desires on others we feel are less blessed. There is no Rock. It is an
illusion, you diddle head.
Asshole.
Steven Douglas
2009-10-27 12:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
No, it's a fact. And I stand by every word I wrote above until you
show me the inaccuracies.
Doc
2009-10-28 00:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
No, it's a fact. And I stand by every word I wrote above until you
show me the inaccuracies.

Stopping communism? Ha! A pig in a poke, at best. It went on for decades
more and retook the South. It's still there.
Foreign armies in a sovereign nation's civil conflict don't stop the
ideology -- it fuels it.
You don't get it, do ya?
Jesus christ, you tree stump.
What stops an ideology is its lack of positive results for the individual,
and hence, for the collective.
All ideologies are terribly susceptible to human behavioral problems, which
no ideology, no laws, no beliefs, can defeat.
Decades after a tense global competition, one system collapsed in the USSR
under it own corruptive, wasteful, foolish weight.
And foolishly some of our lesser-brained leaders claimed credit for it.
The irony is we're ostensibly heading the same direction.
Ideologies, gods, nations, leaders come and go.
What remains is our self-responsibility.
Exercise it to it fullest extent, and tyranny will have no place to gain a
foothold.
Once leaders are minimized in our daily importance by more of the populaces'
self-responsiblity, tyrants will have a tough time working their evil.
And that includes would-be tyrants, such as medialogues like Lou Dobbs and
demogogic assholes like Sarah Palin this nation is so infested with.
Let others do the thinking, the driving of the bus, and the passengers only
get to the destination the driver desires. It may be a diverting,
entertaining trip for the rest, but ultimately they remain the disenchanted.
Our Constitution was meant to minimize the power of a small group of elected
leaders, by having as much public participation, read self-responsibility,
as possible. Truly their vision was to have the people be the governing
body. And what do we see today, in your much heralded democracy?
Only a very small percentage participate in local or state meetings, and are
relegated to simply casting votes every 2 or 4 years. And what do we see are
the choices?
Ha! Two corporate-fueled parties of corporate investors and former
employees.
And how many Americans know their basic constitutional rights?
And here we are, at a destination rich corporate leaders colluding with
elected leaders desired.
No wonder we're busy distracting ourselves with narcisssim, toys and
fantasies. We're exhausted with self-interest, like our leadership.
Americans, like you, have accepted the elitist-placed status quo, defend it,
and even stupidly die for it.
They love folks like you, tree stump. At least as long as they get money and
subservience from you...
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-10-28 04:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
No, it's a fact. And I stand by every word I wrote above until you
show me the inaccuracies.
Stopping communism? Ha! A pig in a poke, at best.  It went on for decades
more and retook the South. It's still there.
You ignored what I wrote. I stand by every word I wrote until you show
me the inaccuracies.
Doc
2009-10-28 23:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
No, it's a fact. And I stand by every word I wrote above until you
show me the inaccuracies.
Stopping communism? Ha! A pig in a poke, at best. It went on for decades
more and retook the South. It's still there.
You ignored what I wrote. I stand by every word I wrote until you show
me the inaccuracies.

We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
What you think would've, or should've happened, an a final outcome is a
theoretical.
Less than that, actually.
It doesn't even matter if it played out to your projection.
Communism would've died anyway for lack of positive results for the
individual.
We see it today, and since no further military intervention from us
occurred, your point is a fucking MOOT one, tree stump.
Unless...of course, you obsess about getting that elusive, much desired
'win' to reaffirm your support for a corrupted ideology and a misguided
interventionalist policy.
LOL!
Or...your desire simply to bolster your self-righteousness.
Doesn't matter.
Self-responsibility and the non-meddling of foreign interests, commercial or
military, are the keys to sovereign nations' people being more satisfied,
and easing tensions, reducing conflicts (including terrorism), and defeating
tyrants of ALL kinds.
Including US global hegemonic assholes.
Doc ;))~
Steven Douglas
2009-10-29 04:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
No, it's a fact. And I stand by every word I wrote above until you
show me the inaccuracies.
Stopping communism? Ha! A pig in a poke, at best. It went on for decades
more and retook the South. It's still there.
You ignored what I wrote. I stand by every word I wrote until you show
me the inaccuracies.
We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
Good. You never showed what was "fanciful" about the *facts* I
presented. I stand by every word I wrote.
Doc
2009-10-29 11:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
No, it's a fact. And I stand by every word I wrote above until you
show me the inaccuracies.
Stopping communism? Ha! A pig in a poke, at best. It went on for decades
more and retook the South. It's still there.
You ignored what I wrote. I stand by every word I wrote until you show
me the inaccuracies.
We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
Good. You never showed what was "fanciful" about the *facts* I
presented. I stand by every word I wrote.

As a clown stands in his big floppy shoes.
Doc
2009-10-29 12:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
We did it in Korea. The fact is, we had the communists stopped in
January of 1973. South Vietnam continued to exist as an independent
and free country for nearly two-and-a-half years after that. But then,
after Nixon resigned, the Democrats in Congress decided we would not
abide by the Paris Peace Accord after all, and pulled the plug on
South Vietnam. That gave the green light to the communists to restart
the fighting, and even while South Vietnam put up a fight (without our
funding, as it was withdrawn by the Democrats), the communists (who
were continuing to be well funded by their backers, the USSR and
China), eventually rolled into Saigon and took over South Vietnam. It
happened because our government gave up, just as I said above. If we
had continued to abide by the Paris Peace Accord, the communists would
have thought twice about restarting that war. But they believed they
had enough Americans on their side (people such as you and many
others), and they were right. Patience paid off for them.
Fanciful, junior, but not largely accurate.
I stand by every word until you show me the inaccuracies.
Your shallow assumption that we had 'communists stopped' is a laugh.
No, it's a fact. And I stand by every word I wrote above until you
show me the inaccuracies.
Stopping communism? Ha! A pig in a poke, at best. It went on for decades
more and retook the South. It's still there.
You ignored what I wrote. I stand by every word I wrote until you show
me the inaccuracies.
We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
Good. You never showed what was "fanciful" about the *facts* I
presented. I stand by every word I wrote.
As a clown stands in his big floppy shoes.
Your "facts" lay the blame on the Democrats, but the full story reaches much
deeper into the wily mechanizations of the Nixon administration, junior. I
lived through those muddled days, and remember them quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords
There is no way a leader is going to keep his popularity intact by clinging
to an unpopular war. Obama may well learn this hard fact, too.
All I hear here daily is your drone of fawning over past and present wars,
the military, and time segments divided up into Presidential eras.
You're much like a bee in a hive, and yet the smoke and fire are
approaching, and there's nothing you can do about it.
A terribly flawed misguided species that's accepted to series of
mechanizations by a relative few elitists as the foundation for faith in a
system they created to benefit themselves.
You poor clown.
Honk your horn, light up your red nose, and wiggle your big ears, junior.
LOL!
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 00:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
Good. You never showed what was "fanciful" about the *facts* I
presented. I stand by every word I wrote.
As a clown stands in his big floppy shoes.
Now I know I'm right. If all you've got is name-calling, you've got
nothing. I won't even bother to read your next post. It's snipped,
unread.
Doc
2009-10-31 09:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
Good. You never showed what was "fanciful" about the *facts* I
presented. I stand by every word I wrote.
As a clown stands in his big floppy shoes.
Now I know I'm right. If all you've got is name-calling, you've got
nothing. I won't even bother to read your next post. It's snipped,
unread.

Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. And it doesn't matter if your
version of history is more palatable to you than what actually happened.
Ignoring the long, dreary manipulations of a criminal administration, and
simply state that Democrats dropped the ball alone, is to invite anyone with
a working frontal lobe, to snip you and your rightwinged posts off one after
another, junior.
But, I don't do that kind of shit to people.
You, the defender of free speech supposedly, certainly have a difficult time
accepting the application of that right.
You want to spew out biased horseshit, then you'll get the treatment it and
you deserve.
I have no patience for re-writers of history, junior. You want to edit out
the parts that are directly relevant, then by all means, have yourself a
picnic.
But don't expect me to be there at your campsite, eating your shit.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-10-31 15:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
Good. You never showed what was "fanciful" about the *facts* I
presented. I stand by every word I wrote.
As a clown stands in his big floppy shoes.
Now I know I'm right. If all you've got is name-calling, you've got
nothing. I won't even bother to read your next post. It's snipped,
unread.
Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. And it doesn't matter if your
version of history is more palatable to you than what actually happened.
Ignoring the long, dreary manipulations of a criminal administration, and
simply state that Democrats dropped the ball alone, is to invite anyone with
I didn't say they dropped the ball. Their actions were quite
intentional.
Post by Steven Douglas
a working frontal lobe, to snip you and your rightwinged posts off one after
another, junior.
But, I don't do that kind of shit to people.
You, the defender of free speech supposedly, certainly have a difficult time
accepting the application of that right.
You want to spew out biased horseshit, then you'll get the treatment it and
you deserve.
I have no patience for re-writers of history, junior. You want to edit out
the parts that are directly relevant, then by all means, have yourself a
picnic.
Show me where I'm wrong. All you've given so far is name-calling and
"you're wrong." Absolutely nothing of substance.
Doc
2009-10-31 18:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
We could go on and on massaging your ego, but this is my last comment on
this shit.
Good. You never showed what was "fanciful" about the *facts* I
presented. I stand by every word I wrote.
As a clown stands in his big floppy shoes.
Now I know I'm right. If all you've got is name-calling, you've got
nothing. I won't even bother to read your next post. It's snipped,
unread.
Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. And it doesn't matter if your
version of history is more palatable to you than what actually happened.
Ignoring the long, dreary manipulations of a criminal administration, and
simply state that Democrats dropped the ball alone, is to invite anyone with
I didn't say they dropped the ball. Their actions were quite
intentional.

Here we fucking go with your slippery shit again. You laid the blame for not
supporting, following through, squarely, solely on the
Democrats. The assumption is that if Republicans had been in a majority
they'd gone against the grain of a society sick and tired of the Viet Nam
fiasco, which was a war we never needed to enter to protect our security.
You must be unable to imagine how it was around 1975, junior, when one
terribly manipulative criminal executive administration had just left
office, and its unpopular VP handed a withering end of a ragged, long
unpopular war.
At that time, the nation was just starting to emerge from a horrid energy
crisis and a deep recession.
I know precisely, as you do, asshole, why you choose to edit out the other
significant part of the political and social milieu of events you desire to
have the naive buy your tainted version of history.
Since you claim to be a JFK fan, you must be reminded he had set into motion
the withdrawal from Nam shortly before his murder. JFK got smart, and knew
it was a quicksand quagmire. Perhaps you should take a clue from his
reversal.
I'm at a loss to rationalize what you think such biased horseshit you spew
will accomplish, except to further stain your pissed warfaring pants, which
have already dropped to your wobbly knees in anticipation of another status
quo/elitist rear ram job.
Go peddle your ultra rightwing ol' wares to someone as gullible and
delusional as you.
None of what you 'stand by' has anything to do with accurately representing
the full reality of those days, and the motivation of the congress and the
people supporting their action.
What it does have to do with, is your psychotic disposition and worn
ideology that is inspired by revisionist history. It obviously gives you a
hard-on, however brief, but it does nothing for the rest of us but bore and
aggravate.
In you limited view, all we really need to do is keep
ultraconservatives/conservatives in high positons of power forever, and
we'll all be so much happier.
You had your 8 years of shit-blowing, mass killing, corruption, oppression,
repression, and suppression, ass clown, and now that tent revival has ended.
It's the way reality works. You get your chance, then the other side gets
their's.
Wait in line, junior...you'll get your lil' shitty piece of heaven again.
Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
a working frontal lobe, to snip you and your rightwinged posts off one after
another, junior.
But, I don't do that kind of shit to people.
You, the defender of free speech supposedly, certainly have a difficult time
accepting the application of that right.
You want to spew out biased horseshit, then you'll get the treatment it and
you deserve.
I have no patience for re-writers of history, junior. You want to edit out
the parts that are directly relevant, then by all means, have yourself a
picnic.
Show me where I'm wrong. All you've given so far is name-calling and
"you're wrong." Absolutely nothing of substance.
Steven Douglas
2009-11-01 04:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. And it doesn't matter if your
version of history is more palatable to you than what actually happened.
Ignoring the long, dreary manipulations of a criminal administration, and
simply state that Democrats dropped the ball alone, is to invite anyone with
I didn't say they dropped the ball. Their actions were quite
intentional.
Here we fucking go with your slippery shit again. You laid the blame for not
supporting, following through, squarely, solely on the Democrats.
That's right. The Democrats, with strong majorities in Congress, cut
off funding for South Vietnam. Meanwhile, North Vietnam was continuing
to be funded by the USSR and China. Some people say we should not have
funded South Vietnam, yet these same people never say the USSR and
China should not have funded North Vietnam. I've never understood that
double standard.
Post by Doc
The assumption is that if Republicans had been in a majority
they'd gone against the grain of a society sick and tired of the Viet Nam
fiasco, which was a war we never needed to enter to protect our security.
Our government made an agreement with South Vietnam to continue to
fund them, and then the Democratic majority in Congress broke that
agreement.
Post by Doc
You must be unable to imagine how it was around 1975, junior, when one
terribly manipulative criminal executive administration had just left
office, and its unpopular VP handed a withering end of a ragged,  long
unpopular war.
All Ford wanted to do was uphold our agreement to fund South Vietnam.
Our troops were already home. No one was talking about returning
troops to Vietnam (note the correct spelling of Vietnam, viola). It
was a matter of funding South Vietnam while North Vietnam was being
funded by its allies. But the Democratically controlled Congress
refused to uphold our agreement, and they had enough votes to override
a potential veto.
Post by Doc
At that time, the nation was just starting to emerge from a horrid energy
crisis and a deep recession.
I know precisely, as you do, asshole, why you choose to edit out the other
significant part of the political and social milieu of events you desire to
have the naive buy your tainted version of history.
What have I edited out? Show me. You keep telling me I'm wrong, but
you don't give any specifics.
Post by Doc
Since you claim to be a JFK fan, you must be reminded he had set into motion
the withdrawal from Nam shortly before his murder. JFK got smart, and knew
it was a quicksand quagmire. Perhaps you should take a clue from his
reversal.
There are no documents to back up what you just wrote. It's a
*fanciful* speculation by leftists like you, based on nothing of
substance. However, after watching the way the Democrats gave it all
away in 1975, I wish Kennedy or Johnson actually had withdrawn our
involvement before it really got started.
Post by Doc
I'm at a loss to rationalize what you think such biased horseshit you spew
will accomplish, except to further stain your pissed warfaring pants, which
have already dropped to your wobbly knees in anticipation of another status
quo/elitist rear ram job.
Go peddle your ultra rightwing ol' wares to someone as gullible and
delusional as you.
I'm a center-right moderate, Doc. You're the ultra-extremist with some
of your views. This country is solidly center-right, and I'm right in
the middle of it. Have you seen the Gallup polls that show 40% of
Americans call themselves conservative? Another 40% are moderate, and
20% are liberal. But you'll be happy to know that those who call
themselves "strongly liberal" comprise 5% of Americans. That's you,
Doc. You're right there in that 5% fringe.

Here's something for you to think about, because I'm sure it goes
against everything you believe about the direction of this country's
political ideology:

[quoting] Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election,
Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent
years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to
18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and
Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of
all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted
to the right rather than to the left. [end quote]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/special-report-ideologically-moving.aspx
Post by Doc
None of what you 'stand by' has anything to do with accurately representing
the full reality of those days, and the motivation of the congress and the
people supporting their action.
What it does have to do with, is your psychotic disposition and worn
ideology that is inspired by revisionist history. It obviously gives you a
hard-on, however brief, but it does nothing for the rest of us but bore and
aggravate.
You still haven't shown anything of substance. Your denials, without
substance, are meaningless.
Post by Doc
In you limited view, all we really need to do is keep
ultraconservatives/conservatives in high positons of power forever, and
we'll all be so much happier.
You had your 8 years of shit-blowing, mass killing, corruption, oppression,
repression, and suppression, ass clown, and now that tent revival has ended.
Are you forgetting, with your colorful descriptions above, the
involvement of all those Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion
of Iraq, including John Kerry and John Edwards (the Democratic ticket
in 2004)?
Post by Doc
It's the way reality works. You get your chance, then the other side gets
their's.
Wait in line, junior...you'll get your lil' shitty piece of heaven again.
The 2010 elections will be very interesting, won't they Doc?
Doc
2009-11-01 12:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. And it doesn't matter if your
version of history is more palatable to you than what actually happened.
Ignoring the long, dreary manipulations of a criminal administration, and
simply state that Democrats dropped the ball alone, is to invite anyone with
I didn't say they dropped the ball. Their actions were quite
intentional.
Here we fucking go with your slippery shit again. You laid the blame for not
supporting, following through, squarely, solely on the Democrats.
That's right. The Democrats, with strong majorities in Congress, cut
off funding for South Vietnam. Meanwhile, North Vietnam was continuing
to be funded by the USSR and China. Some people say we should not have
funded South Vietnam, yet these same people never say the USSR and
China should not have funded North Vietnam. I've never understood that
double standard.
Post by Doc
The assumption is that if Republicans had been in a majority
they'd gone against the grain of a society sick and tired of the Viet Nam
fiasco, which was a war we never needed to enter to protect our security.
Our government made an agreement with South Vietnam to continue to
fund them, and then the Democratic majority in Congress broke that
agreement.
Post by Doc
You must be unable to imagine how it was around 1975, junior, when one
terribly manipulative criminal executive administration had just left
office, and its unpopular VP handed a withering end of a ragged, long
unpopular war.
All Ford wanted to do was uphold our agreement to fund South Vietnam.
Our troops were already home. No one was talking about returning
troops to Vietnam (note the correct spelling of Vietnam, viola). It
was a matter of funding South Vietnam while North Vietnam was being
funded by its allies. But the Democratically controlled Congress
refused to uphold our agreement, and they had enough votes to override
a potential veto.
Post by Doc
At that time, the nation was just starting to emerge from a horrid energy
crisis and a deep recession.
I know precisely, as you do, asshole, why you choose to edit out the other
significant part of the political and social milieu of events you desire to
have the naive buy your tainted version of history.
What have I edited out? Show me. You keep telling me I'm wrong, but
you don't give any specifics.
Post by Doc
Since you claim to be a JFK fan, you must be reminded he had set into motion
the withdrawal from Nam shortly before his murder. JFK got smart, and knew
it was a quicksand quagmire. Perhaps you should take a clue from his
reversal.
There are no documents to back up what you just wrote. It's a
*fanciful* speculation by leftists like you, based on nothing of
substance. However, after watching the way the Democrats gave it all
away in 1975, I wish Kennedy or Johnson actually had withdrawn our
involvement before it really got started.
Post by Doc
I'm at a loss to rationalize what you think such biased horseshit you spew
will accomplish, except to further stain your pissed warfaring pants, which
have already dropped to your wobbly knees in anticipation of another status
quo/elitist rear ram job.
Go peddle your ultra rightwing ol' wares to someone as gullible and
delusional as you.
I'm a center-right moderate, Doc. You're the ultra-extremist with some
of your views. This country is solidly center-right, and I'm right in
the middle of it. Have you seen the Gallup polls that show 40% of
Americans call themselves conservative? Another 40% are moderate, and
20% are liberal. But you'll be happy to know that those who call
themselves "strongly liberal" comprise 5% of Americans. That's you,
Doc. You're right there in that 5% fringe.

Here's something for you to think about, because I'm sure it goes
against everything you believe about the direction of this country's
political ideology:

[quoting] Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election,
Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent
years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to
18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and
Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of
all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted
to the right rather than to the left. [end quote]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/special-report-ideologically-moving.aspx
Post by Doc
None of what you 'stand by' has anything to do with accurately
representing
the full reality of those days, and the motivation of the congress and the
people supporting their action.
What it does have to do with, is your psychotic disposition and worn
ideology that is inspired by revisionist history. It obviously gives you a
hard-on, however brief, but it does nothing for the rest of us but bore and
aggravate.
You still haven't shown anything of substance. Your denials, without
substance, are meaningless.
Post by Doc
In you limited view, all we really need to do is keep
ultraconservatives/conservatives in high positons of power forever, and
we'll all be so much happier.
You had your 8 years of shit-blowing, mass killing, corruption, oppression,
repression, and suppression, ass clown, and now that tent revival has ended.
Are you forgetting, with your colorful descriptions above, the
involvement of all those Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion
of Iraq, including John Kerry and John Edwards (the Democratic ticket
in 2004)?
Post by Doc
It's the way reality works. You get your chance, then the other side gets
their's.
Wait in line, junior...you'll get your lil' shitty piece of heaven again.
The 2010 elections will be very interesting, won't they Doc?

As I said, and I standby it, a majority Republican congress, had it existed
in 1975, wouldn't have incurred the wrath of a public fed up with both the
war fiasco and the criminal mechanizations of its failed leadership.
They would've saved their asses and moved against further funding than was
either requested, or would've junked the entire funding.
You can start on page 598 at this URL and get a more complex look at what
you wrongly assume only the majority Dems would've done.
The Nam war never had a provable rationale to stand on, junior, for our
meddling.
And 58,000 Americans and tens of thousands more disabled, paid the price for
political folly, manipulation, national pride, public ignorance and fear.
Now you skip and hop your psychotic war-obsessed ass on up to the present
quagmires Obama was handed, and see what another massive waste of human life
and public money that'll turn out to be.
Your sick logic that because all make a horrid blunder, that no one should
criticize just one side. Yet, you just laid your criticism solely on the
Dems. The story is far more involved, three-sided, as is often
political/commercial/ideological self-interest.
Re-edited history only further stains the already bloodied and wrongful
past, junior.
No amount of sitting on your pristine ass while you argue for arguments'
sake, and amuse yourself coldly, or Google your brains into a state of
surreality, will change the fact America has made grave moral, tactical
mistakes, as well as engaged in deliberate criminal actions.
No nation can wash itself clean from the faults of the species' repeated
misbehavior and mistakes.
It is a mature person who acknowledges such difficult reality.
The immature person clings to the maneuvers you exhibit here, surprisingly
believing his 'feel good' faith is strengthened by such tactics of avoidance
and gamemanship.
You're a fucker from Hell, junior. And Hell is where you belong, if it
existed.
Doc

http://books.google.com/books?id=k2U9w6RVpowC&pg=PA598&lpg=PA598&dq=
1975+congress+paris+peace+accords&source=bl&ots=47SozIuQ3g&sig=
NV1qK6kvYH_tzZrGrR4QBfSoCUo&hl=en&ei=3XLtSuzOBpO2sAOIp8HXAg&sa=
X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=
1975%20congress%20paris%20peace%20accords&f=false
Steven Douglas
2009-11-01 18:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
As I said, and I standby it, a majority Republican congress, had it existed
in 1975, wouldn't have incurred the wrath of a public fed  up with both the
war fiasco and the criminal mechanizations of its failed leadership.
They would've saved their asses and moved against further funding than was
either requested, or would've junked the entire funding.
It's a moot point, since the Democrats strengthened their majorities
in the 1974 elections. Since you're playing the "if" game, I'll say
"if" Nixon hadn't screwed up with Watergate, South Vietnam would have
continued to be funded. And with the strength of that funding, they
wouldn't have been such a pushover for the well-funded North
Vietnamese, who took full advantage of the green light given them by
the Democratic majority in Congress who cut off South Vietnam's
funding.
Post by Doc
You can start on page 598 at this URL and get a more complex look at what
you wrongly assume only the majority Dems would've done.
I tried the link, and it shows nothing for page 598. Just give me your
synopsis.
Post by Doc
The Nam war never had a provable rationale to stand on, junior, for our
meddling.
That's not what we're discussing right now, but it's a great
distraction from the actual point under discussion.
Post by Doc
And 58,000 Americans and tens of thousands more disabled, paid the price for
political folly, manipulation, national pride, public ignorance and fear.
As I said, if I'd known the Democrats would give it all away in 1975,
I wish Kennedy or Johnson would have gotten us out of there before it
really got started.
Post by Doc
Now you skip and hop your psychotic war-obsessed ass on up to the present
<snip, remainder of distraction unread>
Doc
2009-11-01 23:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
As I said, and I standby it, a majority Republican congress, had it existed
in 1975, wouldn't have incurred the wrath of a public fed up with both the
war fiasco and the criminal mechanizations of its failed leadership.
They would've saved their asses and moved against further funding than was
either requested, or would've junked the entire funding.
It's a moot point, since the Democrats strengthened their majorities
in the 1974 elections. Since you're playing the "if" game, I'll say
"if" Nixon hadn't screwed up with Watergate, South Vietnam would have
continued to be funded. And with the strength of that funding, they
wouldn't have been such a pushover for the well-funded North
Vietnamese, who took full advantage of the green light given them by
the Democratic majority in Congress who cut off South Vietnam's
funding.
Post by Doc
You can start on page 598 at this URL and get a more complex look at what
you wrongly assume only the majority Dems would've done.
I tried the link, and it shows nothing for page 598. Just give me your
synopsis.
Post by Doc
The Nam war never had a provable rationale to stand on, junior, for our
meddling.
That's not what we're discussing right now, but it's a great
distraction from the actual point under discussion.
Post by Doc
And 58,000 Americans and tens of thousands more disabled, paid the price for
political folly, manipulation, national pride, public ignorance and fear.
As I said, if I'd known the Democrats would give it all away in 1975,
I wish Kennedy or Johnson would have gotten us out of there before it
really got started.
Post by Doc
Now you skip and hop your psychotic war-obsessed ass on up to the present
<snip, remainder of distraction unread>

Okay, asshole, what IF America had taken the cue from prominent conservative
leaders advising JFK and Johnson that getting involved in a goddamned civil
conflict would be of no advantage, in any way, for our interests? And that's
what they got, and they ignored it. And later, the ass-licking congress of
both parties gave little resistance to the invasion of Vietnam, preferring
to play up to fears of communistic dominoes.
It was arguably the worst policy mistake America ever made, junior, and it
cost a lots folks their lives and their continued well being.
And I've had all I can tolerate of your diddling around with it.
I truly wished you were older, had been drafted and sent to the Mekong
Delta, where something as ubiquitous as a sniper underground or a small mine
sent you into the Hell you like to champion for others on earth.
Fuck you, junior.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-11-02 02:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Okay, asshole, what IF America had taken the cue from prominent conservative
leaders advising JFK and Johnson that getting involved in a goddamned civil
conflict would be of no advantage, in any way, for our interests? And that's
what they got, and they ignored it. And later, the ass-licking congress of
both parties gave little resistance to the invasion of Vietnam, preferring
to play up to fears of communistic dominoes.
It was arguably the worst policy mistake America ever made, junior, and it
cost a lots folks their lives and their continued well being.
And I've had all I can tolerate of your diddling around with it.
As I've said several times now (going back several months, at least),
knowing that the Democratic majority in Congress would ultimately give
it all away in 1975 by refusing to abide by our agreement with South
Vietnam to continue funding them, I wish Kennedy or Johnson had ended
our involvement in Vietnam before it really got started.
Post by Doc
I truly wished you were older, had been drafted and sent to the Mekong
Delta, where something as ubiquitous as a sniper underground or a small mine
sent you into the Hell you like to champion for others on earth.
I champion sending people to Hell? Since when, liar? Why do you lie,
Doc? Does it make you feel good to lie? It must, since you do it so
often, liar.
Doc
2009-11-02 08:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Okay, asshole, what IF America had taken the cue from prominent conservative
leaders advising JFK and Johnson that getting involved in a goddamned civil
conflict would be of no advantage, in any way, for our interests? And that's
what they got, and they ignored it. And later, the ass-licking congress of
both parties gave little resistance to the invasion of Vietnam, preferring
to play up to fears of communistic dominoes.
It was arguably the worst policy mistake America ever made, junior, and it
cost a lots folks their lives and their continued well being.
And I've had all I can tolerate of your diddling around with it.
As I've said several times now (going back several months, at least),
knowing that the Democratic majority in Congress would ultimately give
it all away in 1975 by refusing to abide by our agreement with South
Vietnam to continue funding them, I wish Kennedy or Johnson had ended
our involvement in Vietnam before it really got started.

It's too bad, then, that you conservatives went along with Dems like dumb
ducks and supported the Iraq invasion., and continued to support the 'surge'
avidly, and expressed hope it would end with glory for us. You must've been
a bit smarter back then.
Post by Doc
I truly wished you were older, had been drafted and sent to the Mekong
Delta, where something as ubiquitous as a sniper underground or a small mine
sent you into the Hell you like to champion for others on earth.
I champion sending people to Hell? Since when, liar? Why do you lie,
Doc? Does it make you feel good to lie? It must, since you do it so
often, liar.

Yep, when you support quagmires like Nam and Iraq, that is tantamount to
cheerleading them into a Hell on earth while you sun bathe in comfort and
safety here.
I don't lie, junior, I expose your lying and that ticks you off.
I know what I am. A liberal. Always have been and right down the straight
line of it. Unwavering.
I was marching with in antiwar protests and supporting folks like Eugene
McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy and MLK, not to mention dozens of lesser
personages spearheading liberal reforms, such as the end of the draft, 18
year vote, women's rights, etc.
And all before I even left high school.
Where were you?
In a sandbox playing with your plastic soldier set.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-11-02 13:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
I truly wished you were older, had been drafted and sent to the Mekong
Delta, where something as ubiquitous as a sniper underground or a small mine
sent you into the Hell you like to champion for others on earth.
I champion sending people to Hell? Since when, liar? Why do you lie,
Doc? Does it make you feel good to lie? It must, since you do it so
often, liar.
Yep, when you support quagmires like Nam and Iraq,
What about Korea? Why did you forget that one? We could have had the
same result in Vietnam, but the Democratic majority in Congress gave
it away in 1975. So it was all for nothing. Hopefully they won't do
the same thing with Iraq.
Post by Doc
that is tantamount to
cheerleading them into a Hell on earth while you sun bathe in comfort and
safety here.
I understand that you don't like war, pacifist. I don't like it
either. But I also understand that if you had your way, tyranny would
rule the world. If it had been up to you, we'd have not fought Hitler.
You'd have wanted to wait for him to defeat himself. You are so naive.
Post by Doc
I don't lie, junior, I expose your lying and that ticks you off.
The only thing you've exposed is your ignorance of what happened
between 1973 and 1975 in Vietnam.
Post by Doc
I know what I am.  A liberal. Always have been and right down the straight
line of it. Unwavering.
You're a radical fringe leftist, part of the 5% of Americans who think
of themselves as strongly liberal.
Post by Doc
I was marching with in antiwar protests and supporting folks like Eugene
McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy and MLK, not to mention dozens of lesser
personages spearheading liberal reforms, such as the end of the draft, 18
year vote, women's rights, etc.
And all before I even left high school.
You never did leave high school, did you?
Doc
2009-11-02 23:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
I truly wished you were older, had been drafted and sent to the Mekong
Delta, where something as ubiquitous as a sniper underground or a small mine
sent you into the Hell you like to champion for others on earth.
I champion sending people to Hell? Since when, liar? Why do you lie,
Doc? Does it make you feel good to lie? It must, since you do it so
often, liar.
Yep, when you support quagmires like Nam and Iraq,
What about Korea? Why did you forget that one?

I didn't think you needed the Complete Boondoggle Meddling Interventionalist
List.

We could have had the
same result in Vietnam, but the Democratic majority in Congress gave
it away in 1975. So it was all for nothing. Hopefully they won't do
the same thing with Iraq.

Once again, junior, and you keep avoiding it, your suggested theoretical on
the eventual 'satisfactory' outcome -- a sustained Democracy through
continued US support for the SV forces monetarily -- hasn't anything to
stand on except the speculation generated by the incompletion of that
support. It's simply speculation on what would've happened to the sputtering
SV army, and formerly heavily protected Saigon government, long codependent
on a massive occupation force that had no majority public support for most
of its mission, directed by two despised administrations here, and a
corrupted one in S. Vietnam. By 1975, had the Republicans been in a majority
and played out your desires of monetary support, they'd been voted out of
office. Since they were already fighting for their political lives for
getting America into another nation's civil war, and reeling from an intense
antiwar environment, it'd been political suicide. So, you keep laying the
sole blame on the Congress for not carrying on with going against the
majority's wishes to rid itself of a horridly bloody costly occupation, a
quagmire, and fantasize that a Republican majority would've done the
opposite. I know it wouldn't have.
When conservatives continued to support the equally unpopular Iraq war, the
'surge' continuation, it helped liberals and moderates to regain a majority
power.
So, you really believe they'd done the same back then, had they been in a
majority? The funding would've been there, if they took the risk, but
they'd been voted out of office.
And in the next administration, a liberal one with Carter, and a liberal
majority congress in place, how much more support do you think the Saigon
government would've gotten? LOL!
It would've come to an 'unsatisfactory' conclusion any way, dummy.
It was a foolish decision to invade.
It ended the way it began for us.
Looking stupid, ashamed, bewildered is exactly what we deserved.
Stupid sloppy wars can always look better over three decades later, by
looking at what you desire to see, quoting favorable opinions and citing
statistics and analyses. Engaging in 'what if's' galore. But that doesn't
change the political, tactical, social realities, junior, of bad policy
making, wasted lives, and public money.
America made a grave mistake getting involved in another nation's internal
conflict. We're not holy crusaders, asshole. We are not morally superior to
assume that haughty position.
And your mechanizations right here are evidence of gamesmanship, ego
defense, dodges, biasedness, and lies. It is inherent in all of us in this
species. A disgraced administration left office despised by most, and
another one is mired in conservatives' hatred and fears of his policies.
Politics suits psychotic assholes like you. It's a fertile swampland to roll
about in, spinning facts, altering reality, slipping and sliding when pinned
down, presenting a high moral veneer that thinly hides egoism, greed, lies,
manipulations, and power lusting.
The only fucking reason we need to engage in mass killing is to protect our
direct security interests, and only after all other peaceful moves have been
exhausted. If we are attacked suddenly, then we respond directly and
quickly. That goes without saying. Anything less is a goddamn thrillseeking
tragic folly for overgrown dumb kiddies like you.
Doc
Post by Doc
that is tantamount to
cheerleading them into a Hell on earth while you sun bathe in comfort and
safety here.
I understand that you don't like war, pacifist. I don't like it
either. But I also understand that if you had your way, tyranny would
rule the world. If it had been up to you, we'd have not fought Hitler.
You'd have wanted to wait for him to defeat himself. You are so naive.
Post by Doc
I don't lie, junior, I expose your lying and that ticks you off.
The only thing you've exposed is your ignorance of what happened
between 1973 and 1975 in Vietnam.
Post by Doc
I know what I am. A liberal. Always have been and right down the straight
line of it. Unwavering.
You're a radical fringe leftist, part of the 5% of Americans who think
of themselves as strongly liberal.
Post by Doc
I was marching with in antiwar protests and supporting folks like Eugene
McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy and MLK, not to mention dozens of lesser
personages spearheading liberal reforms, such as the end of the draft, 18
year vote, women's rights, etc.
And all before I even left high school.
You never did leave high school, did you?
Doc
2009-11-01 12:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
Doesn't matter if you read my posts or not. And it doesn't matter if your
version of history is more palatable to you than what actually happened.
Ignoring the long, dreary manipulations of a criminal administration, and
simply state that Democrats dropped the ball alone, is to invite anyone with
I didn't say they dropped the ball. Their actions were quite
intentional.
Here we fucking go with your slippery shit again. You laid the blame for not
supporting, following through, squarely, solely on the Democrats.
That's right. The Democrats, with strong majorities in Congress, cut
off funding for South Vietnam. Meanwhile, North Vietnam was continuing
to be funded by the USSR and China. Some people say we should not have
funded South Vietnam, yet these same people never say the USSR and
China should not have funded North Vietnam. I've never understood that
double standard.
Post by Doc
The assumption is that if Republicans had been in a majority
they'd gone against the grain of a society sick and tired of the Viet Nam
fiasco, which was a war we never needed to enter to protect our security.
Our government made an agreement with South Vietnam to continue to
fund them, and then the Democratic majority in Congress broke that
agreement.
Post by Doc
You must be unable to imagine how it was around 1975, junior, when one
terribly manipulative criminal executive administration had just left
office, and its unpopular VP handed a withering end of a ragged, long
unpopular war.
All Ford wanted to do was uphold our agreement to fund South Vietnam.
Our troops were already home. No one was talking about returning
troops to Vietnam (note the correct spelling of Vietnam, viola). It
was a matter of funding South Vietnam while North Vietnam was being
funded by its allies. But the Democratically controlled Congress
refused to uphold our agreement, and they had enough votes to override
a potential veto.
Post by Doc
At that time, the nation was just starting to emerge from a horrid energy
crisis and a deep recession.
I know precisely, as you do, asshole, why you choose to edit out the other
significant part of the political and social milieu of events you desire to
have the naive buy your tainted version of history.
What have I edited out? Show me. You keep telling me I'm wrong, but
you don't give any specifics.
Post by Doc
Since you claim to be a JFK fan, you must be reminded he had set into motion
the withdrawal from Nam shortly before his murder. JFK got smart, and knew
it was a quicksand quagmire. Perhaps you should take a clue from his
reversal.
There are no documents to back up what you just wrote. It's a
*fanciful* speculation by leftists like you, based on nothing of
substance. However, after watching the way the Democrats gave it all
away in 1975, I wish Kennedy or Johnson actually had withdrawn our
involvement before it really got started.
Post by Doc
I'm at a loss to rationalize what you think such biased horseshit you spew
will accomplish, except to further stain your pissed warfaring pants, which
have already dropped to your wobbly knees in anticipation of another status
quo/elitist rear ram job.
Go peddle your ultra rightwing ol' wares to someone as gullible and
delusional as you.
I'm a center-right moderate, Doc. You're the ultra-extremist with some
of your views. This country is solidly center-right, and I'm right in
the middle of it. Have you seen the Gallup polls that show 40% of
Americans call themselves conservative? Another 40% are moderate, and
20% are liberal. But you'll be happy to know that those who call
themselves "strongly liberal" comprise 5% of Americans. That's you,
Doc. You're right there in that 5% fringe.

Here's something for you to think about, because I'm sure it goes
against everything you believe about the direction of this country's
political ideology:

[quoting] Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election,
Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent
years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to
18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and
Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of
all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted
to the right rather than to the left. [end quote]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121403/special-report-ideologically-moving.aspx
Post by Doc
None of what you 'stand by' has anything to do with accurately
representing
the full reality of those days, and the motivation of the congress and the
people supporting their action.
What it does have to do with, is your psychotic disposition and worn
ideology that is inspired by revisionist history. It obviously gives you a
hard-on, however brief, but it does nothing for the rest of us but bore and
aggravate.
You still haven't shown anything of substance. Your denials, without
substance, are meaningless.
Post by Doc
In you limited view, all we really need to do is keep
ultraconservatives/conservatives in high positons of power forever, and
we'll all be so much happier.
You had your 8 years of shit-blowing, mass killing, corruption, oppression,
repression, and suppression, ass clown, and now that tent revival has ended.
Are you forgetting, with your colorful descriptions above, the
involvement of all those Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion
of Iraq, including John Kerry and John Edwards (the Democratic ticket
in 2004)?
Post by Doc
It's the way reality works. You get your chance, then the other side gets
their's.
Wait in line, junior...you'll get your lil' shitty piece of heaven again.
The 2010 elections will be very interesting, won't they Doc?

The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
be won and how unimportant the conflict was to the outcome of the Cold War.

On May 27, 1964, President Johnson called Russell to ask him for advice on
the "Vietnam thing." Russell called the situation the "damn worse mess I
ever saw" and warned it would lead to a difficult war against the North
Vietnamese and Chinese in the jungles. Russell said the U.S. position was
"deteriorating" and that it looked like "the more we try to do for them [the
South Vietnamese government], the less they are willing to do for
themselves." Russell said Americans were not ready to send troops to do the
fighting. If it came to the option of sending Americans or getting out,
Russell said, "I'd get out." When Johnson asked him what was at stake,
Russell responded that the territory was not important a "damn bit" to the
United States. Russell also said he was concerned that McNamara was not as
"objective" as he needed to be and that he didn't understand the "history
and background" of the Vietnamese. Although Russell publicly insisted on
using as much force as possible after Johnson committed the United States to
the conflict, privately he continued to express his fears.

A similar dynamic could be seen in the debate surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution in August 1964. The resolution granted the president sweeping
authority to use military force in Vietnam and has often been characterized
as the most dramatic example of Congress blindly deferring to the executive
branch. The House passed the resolution 416 to 0 and the Senate 88 to 2,
with Democratic Senators Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening in opposition.
Still, many legislators had to be persuaded to support the administration.
Johnson understood that, which is why he chose a widely trusted figure,
Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright -- the Chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, who had expressed doubts about the war -- to handle the
resolution in Congress.

Congress fell short in the Gulf of Tonkin debate because it did too little,
not because it did too much. Some legislators were far ahead of the
administration, predicting the problems with the war, as well as the
problems inherent in such an expansion of executive power. Facing an
election and right-wing Republicans who were questioning the willingness of
Democrats to use force, however, many members of both parties buckled and
failed to act on their misgivings until later.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_congress_got_us_out_of_vietnam
Steven Douglas
2009-11-01 18:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
This has nothing to do with the Democratic majority in Congress
cutting of South Vietnam's funding in 1975.
Doc
2009-11-01 23:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
This has nothing to do with the Democratic majority in Congress
cutting of South Vietnam's funding in 1975.

It has everything to do with it.
Viet Nam was A BIG FUCKING LEADERSHIP-LED SCREW UP, that littered the
landscape with dead and disabled bodies of a deeply socially, morally torn
nation through five administrations.
And you want to keep bringing this fucking bloody mess up, and laying
partisan blame for it, or screw around with it for your patriotic pride, or
your insufferable bloated ego.
Stop playing with it, junior, and lay the goddamned ugly shit stain of Nam
to rest.
Go romp around in Afghanistan.
It's the next shit stain.
You fucking psychotic bastard.
Doc
Doc
2009-11-02 00:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
This has nothing to do with the Democratic majority in Congress
cutting of South Vietnam's funding in 1975.

Everyone knows the South Vietnamese Army, sans the huge American troop
support, didn't collapse for lack of fucking funding, junior. It collapsed
because of the relatively sudden loss of military codependence.
And that reliance on codependence is the weakness of foreign
interventionalism, exacerbated by the reality it was unnecessary to protect
one's direct security.
Let me suggest you try an experiment, meddler.
The next time you see your neighbors having a territorial conflict, perhaps
over a dumping of grass clippings across someone's property line, waddle
over there and take sides, and see what the outcome is for you...and them.
It's as simple as that, for meddling in conflicts that don't directly affect
the meddler.
It's something most mature adults learn, either the hard way, or are just
intuitive or smart enough to know.
There are conflicts that are brought to one's doorstep, and are unavoidable,
but there are many, many more that are going on across the street, down the
block, across town, over in the next county of no consequence to endangering
your fucking ass.
Getting stupidly involved in another's war has precisely the consequences
we've seen with the Nam War, and here you are, one who wasn't old enough to
be involved with it, retroactively telling people my age who's to blame for
the lack of 'satisfactory' outcome -- which is wholly theoretical. Had the
funding been there, and politicians were uncharacteristically risk-taking
with then disgusted voters, we still couldn't safely predict how events
would've played out.
But, one thing's for certain, had Eisenhower and JFK ignored the conflict,
we'd not had to unnecessarily suffer so much as a nation, nor have psychotic
idiots like you keep the hellish pain going long after it ended.
Your notion that once we've made a fat mistake, like invading Nam or Iraq,
we should keep supporting those people. But, as history shows. contiined
support doesn't guarantee a 'satifisfactory' closure, does it? In S. Korea,
decades of a periodically tense stand-off continue, with fears of nuclear
war.
So, in your fucked up mind, we should keep having tense stand-offs virtually
forever, keep intervening in civil wars, and bang our glory drums simply
because we have nothing else to champion or diddle with.
Wait until a world war over resources occurs, junior.
Then you and other smart-ass Americans can directly experience the 'glory'
of standing against an enemy...just before you and your house disappears.
That is the only horrid reality we need to face.
Not going thousands of miles and making others' bodies and homes disappear
in conflicts we watch on TV here.
You're part of the insidious human evil, junior -- the smirking evil of
bloated false altruism that wishes to have 'something inspirational' to
morally toy with in your middle-class pristine mundane bloodless existence.
Fuck you.
Click on your Chinese-made plastic mouse and call up some Google support for
your sickness.
Doc




.
Steven Douglas
2009-11-02 02:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
This has nothing to do with the Democratic majority in Congress
cutting of South Vietnam's funding in 1975.
Everyone knows the South Vietnamese Army, sans the huge American troop
support, didn't collapse for lack of fucking funding, junior. It collapsed
because of the relatively sudden loss of military codependence.
False. You know nothing about it, as you've just demonstrated. Our
troops came home in early 1973. But we continued to fund South
Vietnam, just as North Vietnam was being funded by China and the USSR.
For the next two years, South Vietnam continued to exist as an
independent country. There was nothing sudden about it, but I don't
expect an ignoramus like you to know that. Read some history and learn
something about it.
Doc
2009-11-02 08:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
This has nothing to do with the Democratic majority in Congress
cutting of South Vietnam's funding in 1975.
Everyone knows the South Vietnamese Army, sans the huge American troop
support, didn't collapse for lack of fucking funding, junior. It collapsed
because of the relatively sudden loss of military codependence.
False. You know nothing about it, as you've just demonstrated. Our
troops came home in early 1973. But we continued to fund South
Vietnam, just as North Vietnam was being funded by China and the USSR.
For the next two years, South Vietnam continued to exist as an
independent country. There was nothing sudden about it, but I don't
expect an ignoramus like you to know that. Read some history and learn
something about it.

I said 'relatively' that means, junior, compared to the rapid withdrawal
from Panama, for example. Since we had troops there for over 10 years, even
a withdrawal of 3 years is 'relatively' fast, considering we had 500,000
plus at the apex of it.
And according to whichever analysts you want to rustle up for reference, the
SV army wasn't making sufficient progress, and had to repeatedly be propped
up in battle action by heavy aerial and ground ordnance, which didn't do
much since the Cong were scurrying underground and using successful guerilla
tactics the US had continued difficulty effectively countering.
Oh, I'd bet they really celebrated that corrupted interim government and
brief 'independence' knowing fully well they'd be under more assault as
America's forces left. They knew that, junior.
And interviews with the common people never expected anything to hold fast
or last long. It was, in fact, a civil war fueled as they are, by intense
rivalry and hatred, and we saw that explode onto those people as the SV army
got cut to ribbons, and US forces wimpered out to sea.
It ended the only way it could have, and would've been less injurious to
those people had they marshalled the will and resources to fight for their
independence totally alone without foreign intervention.
It was their war and their war alone, theirs and the North, which are all
the same people, ideologically split, like Americans are increasingly,
divided by conservatives into blue and red havens of ideology.
The Cold War was very much going on, and it was only typical that the USSR
and China would vehemently take sides, even though Russians and Chinese
historically had a difficult relationship...but they were all 'commies' and
the US's foolish invasion helped loosely make an uneasy alliance more
palatable.
That intervention and the support the Southern people gave to the US, made
it certain they'd face even more punishment after their defenses were
stripped away by...
heavy codependence on US military strength....which had little tactical
advantage in the conditions the Vietnamese were well suited for.
History?
History records the USA blundered into the war with ideological arrogance,
and it became a political/social football to score with. And it certainly
aided our economy and made a lot of already fat elitist bastards even
fatter. It got some into high power, while it knocked others out of it. It
tore this nation deeply, as deeply as the Civil War, and you can see the
damage still going on...right here.
It won't stop you, though, of playing with your war theoreticals, misleading
statements, biasedness, and partisan hooting.
You're a war lover, and like your other denials, you spend a lot of energy
and time here denying the obvious.
We got what we deserved for meddling, and our arrogance, our feeling of
superiority was broken. A lot of stupid folks like you can't tolerate the
weakness we exhibited, or think about the many young lives wasted for no
gain. No, instead, you come up with a theoretical that lays all the blame on
a partisanship you detest.
What I detest are fuckers like you. Never having to risk anything more
dangerous than tunnel carpel syndrome. Keep keyboarding and clicking your
lil' mouse, junior.
Enjoy yourself playing with Hell, and championing it.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-11-02 13:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
I said 'relatively' that means, junior, compared to the rapid withdrawal
from Panama, for example. Since we had troops there for over 10 years, even
a withdrawal of 3 years is 'relatively' fast, considering we had 500,000
plus at the apex of it.
Our troops all came home in a matter of a couple of months after the
Paris Peace Accord took effect in January of 1973.
Post by Doc
And according to whichever analysts you want to rustle up for reference, the
SV army wasn't making sufficient progress, and had to repeatedly be propped
up in battle action by heavy aerial and ground ordnance, which didn't do
much since the Cong were scurrying underground and using successful guerilla
tactics the US had continued difficulty effectively countering.
Then isn't it amazing that South Vietnam remained an independent
country for two full years after we withdrew our military involvement?
The reason is that we continued to fund South Vietnam, just as North
Vietnam was being funded by China and the USSR.
Post by Doc
Oh, I'd bet they really celebrated that corrupted interim government and
brief 'independence' knowing fully well they'd be under more assault as
America's forces left. They knew that, junior.
That's not how it happened, ignoramus.
Post by Doc
And interviews with the common people never expected anything to hold fast
or last long. It was, in fact, a civil war fueled as they are, by intense
rivalry and hatred, and we saw that explode onto those people as the SV army
got cut to ribbons, and US forces wimpered out to sea.
You're full of leftist crap. As with other ignorant leftists, you're
confusing the evacuation of our embassy in Saigon with the withdrawal
of our troops. What a moron. Seriously, Doc, you don't know what
you're talking about. You keep proving it over and over again, as this
discussion continues to expose your ignorance.
Doc
2009-11-03 00:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
I said 'relatively' that means, junior, compared to the rapid withdrawal
from Panama, for example. Since we had troops there for over 10 years, even
a withdrawal of 3 years is 'relatively' fast, considering we had 500,000
plus at the apex of it.
Our troops all came home in a matter of a couple of months after the
Paris Peace Accord took effect in January of 1973.

Wrong, It took 4 years. I said it had taken 3 going by memory alone. But if
you want to argue my case for me, then I'll accept your version. LOL!!!!
Despite all this time, the SV army was still not performing well overall by
itself. "Vietnamization" by Nixon had planned that the withdrawal would give
them more time to adapt. It didn't work out that way. LOL!!!!! In any case,
with such a long occupation, short or longer withdrawal, likely wouldn't
have been a factor in helping the uneven SV army, plagued with desertion,
command failures, and the general will to fight against its cousins. Not
many vietnamese will tell you the other unsavory side of US occupation --
that they resented Pale Faces there, killing their people, and taking part
in drug and prostitution trades. Many stories of underage Vietnamese (by our
legal standard) getting US 'aid' up their fannies, junior. Demoralization of
both US and SV forces continued to increase as the stupid war dragged on.
4/69- U.S. troop levels peak at 543,400. There have been 33,641 Americans
killed by now, a total greater than the Korean War.

7/69- The very first U.S. troop withdrawal occurs as 800 men from the 9th
Infantry Division are sent home. The phased troop withdrawal will occur in
14 stages from July 1969 through November 1972.

11/70- American troop levels drop to 334,600.

12/71- U.S. troop levels drop to 156,800.

4/72-U.S. troop levels drop to 69,000.

8/72-The last U.S. combat troops depart Vietnam. (Note: I partied and drank
heavily that month. LOL!!)

3/73-The last remaining American troops withdraw from Vietnam as President
Nixon declares "the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come."

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html

Recheck your history, Mr. Know-It-All.
Post by Doc
And according to whichever analysts you want to rustle up for reference, the
SV army wasn't making sufficient progress, and had to repeatedly be propped
up in battle action by heavy aerial and ground ordnance, which didn't do
much since the Cong were scurrying underground and using successful guerilla
tactics the US had continued difficulty effectively countering.
Then isn't it amazing that South Vietnam remained an independent
country for two full years after we withdrew our military involvement?
The reason is that we continued to fund South Vietnam, just as North
Vietnam was being funded by China and the USSR.

Horseshit. We're to celebrate an unstable interim moment? It took years of
teeter-totter warfare to give them two unsettled years, and the folks who
emigrated here told us they had no faith in that unstable period and fully
expected more warfare, insane reprisals for palling around with Yankees.
You'd better recheck your history, Mr. Historian.
Post by Doc
Oh, I'd bet they really celebrated that corrupted interim government and
brief 'independence' knowing fully well they'd be under more assault as
America's forces left. They knew that, junior.
That's not how it happened, ignoramus.

Recheck your history, dumb bell. You apparently missed the many interviews
of scared emigrated Vietnamese in the two years after our involvement,
telling us how they feared for their friends and families still there during
that brief interlude. And as it turned out, they were right.
Post by Doc
And interviews with the common people never expected anything to hold fast
or last long. It was, in fact, a civil war fueled as they are, by intense
rivalry and hatred, and we saw that explode onto those people as the SV army
got cut to ribbons, and US forces wimpered out to sea.
You're full of leftist crap. As with other ignorant leftists, you're
confusing the evacuation of our embassy in Saigon with the withdrawal
of our troops. What a moron. Seriously, Doc, you don't know what
you're talking about. You keep proving it over and over again, as this
discussion continues to expose your ignorance.

I was intensely involved in the war's progression/regression, junior, simply
because I, unlike you and others younger, was faced with a military draft
before I turned 19.
I then followed the war under Nixon, every step of the way, until its end,
and then watched documentaries on it past that point. If you care to open
your eyes, you'll find major network docs interviewing many Vietnamese that
contradict your version of history.
Go fetch, dummy.
As you showed with your misunderstanding of the withdrawal timetable, you
pretend to know more than you actually do. You can take your rightwing
revisionist manure and stuff it back up into your leaking rectum, junior.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-11-03 03:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Our troops all came home in a matter of a couple of months after the
Paris Peace Accord took effect in January of 1973.
Wrong, It took 4 years. I said it had taken 3 going by memory alone. But if
Doc, seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Having this
"debate" with you is like talking to a brick wall. Except brick walls
are smarter than you are. The Paris Peace Accords were completed in
January 1973. The vast majority of our troops were home by March 1973.
Of course a small contingent remained with the embassy in Saigon. All
embassies have a military contingent. Don't tell me you didn't know
that?

It's obvious that you believed our troops went running for their lives
in April of 1975, chased into the sea by the strong and efficient
North Vietnamese Communists. Wow, it never ceases to amaze me what
people who hate this country will convince themselves to believe. So,
I have no desire to continue this discussion with someone as ill-
informed as you are. There's just no point in it.

As for the remainder of your various long winded posts in this
thread ...
<snip, remainder unread>
Doc
2009-11-03 11:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Our troops all came home in a matter of a couple of months after the
Paris Peace Accord took effect in January of 1973.
Wrong, It took 4 years. I said it had taken 3 going by memory alone. But if
It's you that doesn't know or can't articulate it well enough. I stated
fact, junior. Our troops had already largely withdrawn by January '73, and
the remainder went out in the next two years as the history reference I gave
outlined. What is it that YOU don't accept? Huh? That you made a statement
that misrepresented the withdrawal? The fuckin' withdrawal began much
earlier, and that is precisely because of intense public pressure on Nixon,
and his promise, to get troops outta' Nam. He did that, almost, before he
resigned. But, 'Vietnamization" was as sloppy mess for the SV army, who
weren't a stable fighting force, propped up by US forces, it's not hard to
understand why. Junior, you dummy, they were fighting their own people, and
we stepped into it.
Can you not fucking understand why they had difficulty in motivation? It's
simple to understand for anyone with half a brain, junior. If I were you,
I'd either stop making incomplete references, or get an education on Nam's
timeline. "all troops came home in a matter of months" is to suggest the
Vietnamese army had effectively been trained and could hold their own.
Nothing was farther from the truth, junior. It's revisionist history. That
is exactly why congress and the people were fed up with by 1975. The SV army
wasn't up to the challenge the Cong put on them, not without continued US
support. And whether it was monetary or military, the public and congress
were, by then, ready to pull the damned plug. Polls showed the majority of
the public wanted ALL aid to stop, except for humanitarian efforts, brokered
through a variety of nations and the UN.
I know for whatever purposes you want that fucking mess to smell better, but
the whole fucking thing stank like hell, junior. You assume Americans
should've tried to salvage something outta' that crap they could feel good
about, but by that time, hardly anyone felt good about the many years of
casualties, corruption, exploitation, and seething domestic tensions.
Can you get through your thick skull we weren't constructing a brick
building, junior? It was all unstable, fluid, and chaotic as Hell.
I'm thoroughly sick and fucking tired of you dragging it through your
revisionism and putting the blame on any single group. I've fucking had it
with your stupid rightwing ass, junior.
You got two fucking wars in the Mideast going nowhere...is that not fucking
enough for ya to blather away on, goddamnit?????
You fucking war junkie.
Get a fucking life, kid. And, yes, what was left in the last few days, were
Marines scared for their lives and vastly outnumbered. Long before, US
soldiers had told us they were demoralized soon after they realized what a
fucking mess Nam was, and drug addiction was fairly common. You put a bunch
of propagandized kids into a war telling them how they're 'protecting the
US' from communism, and then they find that all they want to do is save
their asses and get outta' the sewer of it.
Seriously, you need to get yourself something else to exercise your chops
on, instead of retreading this ol' tired worn Nam debate. You take your
fucking obsession with wars, junior, and eat them and shit them out to sea.
Doc

Doc, seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Having this
"debate" with you is like talking to a brick wall. Except brick walls
are smarter than you are. The Paris Peace Accords were completed in
January 1973. The vast majority of our troops were home by March 1973.
Of course a small contingent remained with the embassy in Saigon. All
embassies have a military contingent. Don't tell me you didn't know
that?

It's obvious that you believed our troops went running for their lives
in April of 1975, chased into the sea by the strong and efficient
North Vietnamese Communists. Wow, it never ceases to amaze me what
people who hate this country will convince themselves to believe. So,
I have no desire to continue this discussion with someone as ill-
informed as you are. There's just no point in it.

As for the remainder of your various long winded posts in this
thread ...
<snip, remainder unread>
Steven Douglas
2009-11-03 14:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Post by Doc
Post by Steven Douglas
Our troops all came home in a matter of a couple of months after the
Paris Peace Accord took effect in January of 1973.
Wrong, It took 4 years. I said it had taken 3 going by memory alone. But if
It's you that doesn't know or can't articulate it well enough. I stated
fact, junior. Our troops had already largely withdrawn by January '73, and
the remainder went out in the next two years as the history reference I gave
outlined.
You're just wrong, Doc. Yes, there was a phased drawdown of troops
during Nixon's first term. But there were still plenty of active
combat troops in Vietnam until the Paris Peace Accords took effect in
January 1973. During the next two months, all combat troops were
withdrawn. By March 1973 all combat troops were home. Any remaining
military members in Vietnam were our embassy contingent and a VERY few
noncombat military members who stayed on South Vietnamese military
bases to help with equipment and other noncombat duties.

You're trying to paint a false picture that our military was still
there, still actively involved in combat missions for the two years
after the Paris Peace Accord. You wanted it to appear as if our combat
troops were running for their lives as the communists marched over
them. I know this is widely believed by delusional leftists such as
you, because I've been hearing others say the same thing for all these
years.

So if nothing else, I'd like you to learn once and for all that our
combat troops had been gone from Vietnam for over two years before the
communists overran Saigon. That means the South Vietnamese government
stood up (while they were being funded, just as the North Vietnamese
were being WELL funded by their allies) and defended itself ... until
the Democratic majority in Congress pulled the plug, and they were no
longer being funded and started having trouble operating their
military defenses.

But even with that, they continued to fight until the very end. But
how you expect one side to be unfunded while the other side is WELL
funded, and can't see what the final result of that would be, is ... I
was going to say it's beyond me, but then I remembered I'm dealing
with you on this matter. Nothing is beyond me when it comes to you and
your self-serving delusions.
Doc
2009-11-03 00:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
I said 'relatively' that means, junior, compared to the rapid withdrawal
from Panama, for example. Since we had troops there for over 10 years, even
a withdrawal of 3 years is 'relatively' fast, considering we had 500,000
plus at the apex of it.
Our troops all came home in a matter of a couple of months after the
Paris Peace Accord took effect in January of 1973.
Post by Doc
And according to whichever analysts you want to rustle up for reference, the
SV army wasn't making sufficient progress, and had to repeatedly be propped
up in battle action by heavy aerial and ground ordnance, which didn't do
much since the Cong were scurrying underground and using successful guerilla
tactics the US had continued difficulty effectively countering.
Then isn't it amazing that South Vietnam remained an independent
country for two full years after we withdrew our military involvement?
The reason is that we continued to fund South Vietnam, just as North
Vietnam was being funded by China and the USSR.
Post by Doc
Oh, I'd bet they really celebrated that corrupted interim government and
brief 'independence' knowing fully well they'd be under more assault as
America's forces left. They knew that, junior.
That's not how it happened, ignoramus.
Post by Doc
And interviews with the common people never expected anything to hold fast
or last long. It was, in fact, a civil war fueled as they are, by intense
rivalry and hatred, and we saw that explode onto those people as the SV army
got cut to ribbons, and US forces wimpered out to sea.
You're full of leftist crap. As with other ignorant leftists, you're
confusing the evacuation of our embassy in Saigon with the withdrawal
of our troops. What a moron. Seriously, Doc, you don't know what
you're talking about. You keep proving it over and over again, as this
discussion continues to expose your ignorance.

No, your facts are incomplete, Prof. History. A very small force of Marines
was left to protect the embassies,with the Navy off the coast. And that is
the remnant I referred to.

April 29, 1975 - NVA shell Tan Son Nhut air base in Saigon, killing two U.S.
Marines at the compound gate. Conditions then deteriorate as South
Vietnamese civilians loot the air base. President Ford now orders Operation
Frequent Wind, the helicopter evacuation of 7000 Americans and South
Vietnamese from Saigon, which begins with the radio broadcast of the song
"White Christmas" as a pre-arraigned code signal.
At Tan Son Nhut, frantic civilians begin swarming the helicopters. The
evacuation is then shifted to the walled-in American embassy, which is
secured by U.S. Marines in full combat gear. But the scene there also
deteriorates, as thousands of civilians attempt to get into the compound.
Three U.S. aircraft carriers stand by off the coast of Vietnam to handle
incoming Americans and South Vietnamese refugees. Many South Vietnamese
pilots also land on the carriers, flying American-made helicopters which are
then pushed overboard to make room for more arrivals. Filmed footage of the
$250,000 choppers being tossed into the sea becomes an enduring image of the
war's end.
April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the
embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam.
North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By
11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace.
President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is
over.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1969.html

It ended the way it should've ended. The horrid penalty for a morally,
ideologically arrogant crusading, meddling, exploitative, stupid, reckless
national leadership and its dumb patriotic fearful ignorant supporters was
as it should be for such hugely costly human misbehavior and foolish
mistakes and waste of lives.
And lil' politically obsessed rightwing dummies like you want to play with
it some more.
You go fuck yourself into the goddamn Hell you champion for others.
Doc
Doc
2009-11-02 09:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Doc
The advice that most troubled Johnson came from the senior southern hawk,
Senator Richard Russell of Georgia -- Lyndon Johnson's mentor in the Senate.
In some of the most chilling telephone conversations from the Johnson
presidential archives, Russell explained to Johnson why this war could not
This has nothing to do with the Democratic majority in Congress
cutting of South Vietnam's funding in 1975.
Everyone knows the South Vietnamese Army, sans the huge American troop
support, didn't collapse for lack of fucking funding, junior. It collapsed
because of the relatively sudden loss of military codependence.
False. You know nothing about it, as you've just demonstrated. Our
troops came home in early 1973. But we continued to fund South
Vietnam, just as North Vietnam was being funded by China and the USSR.
For the next two years, South Vietnam continued to exist as an
independent country. There was nothing sudden about it, but I don't
expect an ignoramus like you to know that. Read some history and learn
something about it.

Vietnam is another case altogether. Revisionism about Vietnam is currently
running rampant. Public and private think tanks replete with academics,
retired generals, callow researchers, PhD candidates, and the usual true
believers are producing volumes of data based only on data and not reality.
I hate to put it this way, but all the so-called facts, and all the deep
research is meaningless. The number crunchers using field action reports
just don't get it. Their belief is that given time, the United States would
have won the war. More than 10 years in Vietnam and more than a half-million
men could not change the outcome. General Westmoreland was probably right
when he asked for an additional 200,0000 men but even that many more troops
might not have made a difference to how the war ended. President Lyndon
Johnson was equally right, mainly for political reasons, when he turned him
down.


The drain on America's young through an unpopular draft had become more than
people were willing to endure. The politicians and the military understood
that. They, in effect, told Westmoreland, do what you can with what you
have. He tried, but he failed. It was not enough. It was also not enough for
subsequent commanders, his successors. And, yes, with America never really
losing a major battle, one might be inclined to believe victory was in sight
when we pulled out in 1975. America had grown tired of the war, lives
wasted, the money spent. I have no problem if anyone wants to blame the
press for reporting those attitudes and for creating a public dialogue. That
is the role of the media.


You had to be there to understand the war, the Vietnamese people, and the
will to victory the North had over the South. For every battle won during
daylight, American troops rarely held the night. Darkness was the property
of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. Territory acquired during the day
reverted to the enemy at dusk. You cannot win a war without accumulating
territory. That did not happen in Vietnam. America did not gather in
territory. After a battle - usually successful, except when an ambush
occurred - American troops went to the nearest fortified base they could
find. Our troops licked their wounds, refurbished their equipment, and had a
good meal if available. Then they made ready to fight another day.
Journalists reported all that without prejudice, but with skill and
understanding.


Enter, again, these newly anointed pesky researchers with their countless
tools and academic models. These people look at personnel depth charts,
battle orders and after-action reports, never at reality. Lately they are
using their antiquated slide rules to come up with data in favor of the
South Vietnamese military, a monumental stretch for anyone who covered the
war. In their minds, there is growing evidence, these many years later,
about the South Vietnamese Army, the ARVN, and how it had become a
formidable fighting force in the last years of the war. According to recent
studies -- here we go again -- it was a good army, never a bad army and it
was getting better. Forget the poor leadership. Forget the corruption.
Forget inflated personnel rolls filled with "ghost soldiers." Forget the
high number of desertions. Forget the lack of desire to fight their cousins
from the North and at times, their relatives in the South.


When, as bureau chief for NBC News in Saigon, I sent a crew to cover a story
with the ARVN - not often, I may add - I did it with my hopes high, my teeth
clinched, my stomach churning. Some of the new reasoning goes that because
Congress drastically reduced aid to Saigon, the ARVN, and all the South
Vietnamese fighting forces, were unable to stand and fight the so-called
"ill-equipped and ill-trained" soldiers battling for Hanoi. The press did
not create the inefficiencies of the ARVN; we reported those as we saw them.
No matter how many advisors the United States provided, the South Vietnamese
army failed on its own. Is there a lesson here for Iraq, or even a hint of
things to come? Only time will tell.


If Nguyen Van Thieu's army possessed the will to fight, it would have put up
a battle - any kind of battle - against the North when it swept over South
Vietnam in March and April 1975. Instead, except for small pockets of
resistance - such as at Xuan Loc in the final moments of the war - the bulk
of the ARVN fled. Soldiers threw away their weapons. They stripped off their
uniforms and they never looked back. Saigon fell, and the war ended in
ignominy. It was not the press's fault that the ARVN failed in its mission,
lack of equipment or not. If the Vietnamese Army cared, and if the people
had not become as weary as they did, perhaps the outcome would have been
different. As press, we simply reported what we observed.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0701/pencils-don-t-win-wars.html

Join the revisionists, junior. It's your and their time to hoot for an old
war.
The shitty mess can easily look quite different 35 years later.
Lay the blame.
Proclaim the theoreticals.
Steven Douglas
2009-11-02 13:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Vietnam is another case altogether. Revisionism about Vietnam is currently
running rampant.
What you call "revisionism" is the truth hitting you in the face after
years of believing twisted and distorted "facts" that have become
"common knowledge" among ignoramuses like you.
Doc
2009-11-03 00:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Vietnam is another case altogether. Revisionism about Vietnam is currently
running rampant.
What you call "revisionism" is the truth hitting you in the face after
years of believing twisted and distorted "facts" that have become
"common knowledge" among ignoramuses like you.

As you've shown on the withdrawal figures, and much more, you are working
your version on gaseous unreality.
Fart it all out, junior.
Get the stink out fully.
And then shut the fuck up about the Nam disaster.
You weren't affected directly by any of it.
I had two best friends killed in 1970 within a few months of entering that
Hell you champion.
I faced the draft.
I marched against the war, and was involved in the 1970 Seattle Federal
Courthouse riot.
Smell the fumes of tear gas, dummy, and you'll know what it's like to stand
up for your ideology against the odds.
35 years later, I'm to have some slick weaselly psychotic ass tell me how
'ignorant' I am of something you gather info on with a click of your lil'
mousie, and arrogantly create your favorable scenarios of fantasy.
You shove it so far up your lil' soldier rightwing ass it pops out in China,
junior.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-11-02 13:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
If Nguyen Van Thieu's army possessed the will to fight, it would have put up
a battle - any kind of battle - against the North when it swept over South
Vietnam in March and April 1975.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0701/pencils-don-t-win-wars.html
After the Democratically controlled Congress cut off their funding,
they were supposed to be able to stand up to the well-funded North
Vietnam communists? Get real. You source is as full of crap as you
are, Doc.
Doc
2009-11-03 00:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
If Nguyen Van Thieu's army possessed the will to fight, it would have put up
a battle - any kind of battle - against the North when it swept over South
Vietnam in March and April 1975.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0701/pencils-don-t-win-wars.html
After the Democratically controlled Congress cut off their funding,
they were supposed to be able to stand up to the well-funded North
Vietnam communists? Get real. You source is as full of crap as you
are, Doc.

As one can readily see, you believe what you want, and gather those who
agree. Anyone else can do the same, ass clown.
This man is well known and spent much time in S. Vietnam.
He was at least actually there, not 10,000 miles away in suburban pristine
America where you perch and squawk.
LOL!
Doc
2009-11-03 11:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
If Nguyen Van Thieu's army possessed the will to fight, it would have put up
a battle - any kind of battle - against the North when it swept over South
Vietnam in March and April 1975.
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0701/pencils-don-t-win-wars.html
After the Democratically controlled Congress cut off their funding,
they were supposed to be able to stand up to the well-funded North
Vietnam communists? Get real. You source is as full of crap as you
are, Doc.

Do you know how long you've been in this group blathering about various
wars, junior? Why is it that you can't drift away from war talk?
Huh, why the fuck can't you, you psycho?
Do you kow how fucking crazy you look going on and on about war?
What do you think humanity should do for its entire existence, but to
continue warfaring until the bitter end of the fucking species?
"Doc, I don't like war..."
Save that horseshit for a fucking idiot, you asshole.
Doc
Steven Douglas
2009-11-03 14:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
Do you know how long you've been in this group blathering about various
wars, junior? Why is it that you can't drift away from war talk?
I didn't bring Vietnam into this discussion, moron. I responded to
some false perceptions about Vietnam, and I feel no need to stay quiet
when I see LIES being told, liar.

Woodswun
2009-10-26 01:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
"Their tactic  is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission."
Agreed.
I'm not especially 'au courrant' with World affairs, Steven, but to
me, the 'result' was inevitable. Iraq is a volatile mix of tribes and
aspirations.
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
It's not so desperate, it's working. And they are merely taking
advantage of the opportunity that we provided by destabilizing the
entire area. Who couldn't see this coming?!?
Post by Steven Douglas
Invasion of the Country was foolish. The outcome, inevitable.
This isn't the outcome. The outcome is the democracy that is taking
hold in Iraq. The outcome is that Iraqi security forces have taken the
lead in security there. At the time the Iraqis took the lead in their
own security, it was known by everyone that these types of attacks
would continue for some time. As with all terrorists, these terrorists
don't care about the will of the Iraqi people. Just the opposite, in
fact.
I don't think you were being realistic about how things have
historically worked over there when you made the assumption that
things weren't going to be interfered with by people who had no
interest in sharing power with anyone.
Post by Steven Douglas
One
'Saddam' removed, another to take his place. America cannot rule by
force of military.
As in Vietnam, so many dead soldiers...and for what?
We didn't lose in Vietnam. We gave up. I hope that's not the final
result in Iraq.
Don't set your hopes too high.

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-10-26 16:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
"Their tactic  is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission."
Agreed.
I'm not especially 'au courrant' with World affairs, Steven, but to
me, the 'result' was inevitable. Iraq is a volatile mix of tribes and
aspirations.
But this isn't the result. This is a desperate attempt by terrorists
trying to undermine the new democracy in Iraq -- a democracy that has
been embraced by a majority of the Iraqi people.
It's not so desperate, it's working.
No it's not.
Marvin The Paranoid Android
2009-10-25 21:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
Maybe it's a low-grade civil war. Who knows ... the tactics seem
rather cowardly but then again the slaughter of civilians on all sides
during WW2 isn't anything to gloat about either.
Steven Douglas
2009-10-25 21:54:51 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 2:27 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
Maybe it's a low-grade civil war.  Who knows ... the tactics seem
rather cowardly but then again the slaughter of civilians on all sides
during WW2 isn't anything to gloat about either.
There's no comparison. The terrorists in Iraq are murdering and
maiming their own people. Their goal is to terrorize the Iraqi people
into submission and impose a new tyranny. I hope the Iraqi people
fight back (as opposed to those who think this IS the Iraqi people
fighting back).
Marvin The Paranoid Android
2009-10-25 22:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
On Oct 25, 2:27 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
Maybe it's a low-grade civil war.  Who knows ... the tactics seem
rather cowardly but then again the slaughter of civilians on all sides
during WW2 isn't anything to gloat about either.
There's no comparison. The terrorists in Iraq are murdering and
maiming their own people. Their goal is to terrorize the Iraqi people
into submission and impose a new tyranny. I hope the Iraqi people
fight back (as opposed to those who think this IS the Iraqi people
fighting back).
The problem is 'Iraqi' people -- Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis? Or is it an
outside influence?
Woodswun
2009-10-26 01:43:55 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 6:37 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Steven Douglas
On Oct 25, 2:27 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
Maybe it's a low-grade civil war.  Who knows ... the tactics seem
rather cowardly but then again the slaughter of civilians on all sides
during WW2 isn't anything to gloat about either.
There's no comparison. The terrorists in Iraq are murdering and
maiming their own people. Their goal is to terrorize the Iraqi people
into submission and impose a new tyranny. I hope the Iraqi people
fight back (as opposed to those who think this IS the Iraqi people
fighting back).
The problem is 'Iraqi' people -- Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis? Or is it an
outside influence?
I'm sure they are all getting help from outside.

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-10-26 15:55:21 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 3:37 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Steven Douglas
On Oct 25, 2:27 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
Maybe it's a low-grade civil war.  Who knows ... the tactics seem
rather cowardly but then again the slaughter of civilians on all sides
during WW2 isn't anything to gloat about either.
There's no comparison. The terrorists in Iraq are murdering and
maiming their own people. Their goal is to terrorize the Iraqi people
into submission and impose a new tyranny. I hope the Iraqi people
fight back (as opposed to those who think this IS the Iraqi people
fighting back).
The problem is 'Iraqi' people -- Kurds, Shiites or Sunnis?
That's like saying the people who bombed the Federal Building in
Oklahoma City are the American people fighting back against our
government. Terrorists do not represent anyone other than themselves.
The Iraqi people have spoken with their votes (and their purple ink-
stained fingers, remember?). Just as they're threatening to do now,
the terrorists threatened to blow up polling stations to shut down the
elections. For anyone to say that terrorists who blow up other Iraqis
is an example of "the Iraqi people fighting back", is ridiculous.
Post by Marvin The Paranoid Android
Or is it an outside influence?
The article posted above says, "...the Iraqi government was quick to
blame the attacks on al-Qaeda or remnants of Saddam Hussein’s party."

There have been plenty of outsiders stirring things up in Iraq. There
are also the remnants of Saddam Hussein's party, who would like to
return to power and once again enslave the Iraqi people. How anyone
could even possibly entertain the idea of supporting that is beyond me.
Woodswun
2009-10-26 01:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
You know this is precisely the reason that Bush Sr didn't take out
Saddam, right? His advisors knew something like this would happen, so
he wisely left Saddam in power. He was brutal, he was untrustworthy,
but he kept the assorted factions from each others' throats, thereby
keeping things relatively stable.

You've got several different groups who all hate each other's guts,
and have for centuries.

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-10-26 16:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years
Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.
I suppose there will be people responding to this who will say this is
an example of the Iraqi people fighting back. So the way they fight
back is to murder 132 of their own people, while going against the
will of the majority? Why is it that the terrorists are trying to
disrupt the upcoming January elections? Why would they do that if they
represented the majority? These are terrorists, plain and simple. They
are a tiny fraction of the Iraqi people, and represent no one. Their
aim is to enslave the Iraqi people under a new tyranny. Their tactic
is to terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope it doesn't
work. Others will hope it does.
You know this is precisely the reason that Bush Sr didn't take out
Saddam, right?
The reason George H.W. Bush didn't take out Saddam was because the
goal of the mission was to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Then the further
goal was to isolate him, and make sure he was disarmed of WMD. That's
when he started playing games with the UN inspectors, and several
years later Blair and Clinton withdrew the inspectors and bombed Iraq
for several DAYS. Day after day of intense bombing, and not a peep
from the left about it. So after four years of no inspectors in Iraq,
Saddam capitulated under threat of force to allow inspectors to
return. But he failed to cooperate again. After all that, he set
himself up to be taken out. And Bill Clinton went to England on the
night before the invasion, and told the people of the UK to trust Tony
Blair's judgment to go to war to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein's
WMD.
Post by Woodswun
 His advisors knew something like this would happen, so
he wisely left Saddam in power.  He was brutal, he was untrustworthy,
but he kept the assorted factions from each others' throats, thereby
keeping things relatively stable.
Yes, Saddam did that by torturing and/or murdering hundreds of
thousands of his own people. Not to mention all the people who were
dying under the UN sanctions imposed on his country because of his
game-playing.
Post by Woodswun
You've got several different groups who all hate each other's guts,
and have for centuries.
They can get along. They've shown that over the past few years, when
the Sunnis and Shiites got together and turned on the outside
terrorists who were blowing up Iraqi people. The same thing will
happen again.
Doc
2009-10-27 10:50:03 UTC
Permalink
"Werewolfy" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:0b0861a4-c428-4350-ab34-***@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Tell me your bloody war was all 'worth it' then.

Werewolfy


Baghdad blasts: 132 people killed in worst attack in two years

Iraq suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in more than two years
when two car bombs killed at least 132 people in the centre of
Baghdad.

By Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent
Published: 6:32PM GMT 25 Oct 2009

Another 500 were wounded when the bombs targeting government buildings
exploded in quick succession.

The attacks appeared to represent a statement of intent by Iraq’s
increasingly emboldened insurgent groups after recent predictions of a
new wave of violence with the intention of disrupting elections
planned for January.

Iraqi MPs missed a deadline last week to pass an election law
required to hold the poll, raising the prospect of a damaging delay
that contravenes the constitution.

The decision brought with it warnings of a backlash by insurgents
seeking to exploit the political vacuum and damage the reputation of
Nouri al-Maliki, the pro-American prime minister. In a phone call to
Mr Maliki on Sunday, President Barack Obama described the bombings as
“outrageous” and said they were an attempt to derail progress in
Iraq.

Although there was no immediate claim of responsibility, the Iraqi
government was quick to blame the attacks on al-Qaeda or remnants of
Saddam Hussein’s party.

“The initial analysis shows it bears the fingerprints of al-Qaeda and
the Ba’athists,” said Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman, who was
showered in glass after windows in a hotel he was visiting shattered
from the force of the blast.

For many Iraqis, the attacks were a chilling reminder of their country
as it once was - and perhaps a harbinger of things to come if the
elections are not held on time.

A pall of smoke hung above the city as flames enveloped whole
buildings. On the streets cars that had been tossed in the air by the
power of the explosion lay piled on top each other in pyramids of
twisted metal.

Stagnant water disgorged onto the streets by sewage pipes ripped open
by the blast washed over charred and mangled corpses.

So intense was the heat generated by the bombs, which targeted the
justice ministry and a nearby provincial government building, that
firemen said that many of the dead were too hot to touch.

Although the number of major attacks both in the capital city and
elsewhere in the country dropped significantly since the US military
surge of 2007, this was the second attack of such magnitude in Baghdad
in the last three months.

Nearly 100 people were killed in bombings on the foreign and finance
ministries in August.

But even the calm has been deceptive. Lawlessness remains pervasive
across the country, a fact exemplified by one incident in the
aftermath of Sunday’s bombings.

As police sought to secure the perimeter of the scene, they heard a
frantic banging from the boot of a damaged car with two corpses in the
passenger seats.

Inside, officers discovered a man who had been bundled into the boot
of the car after being seized from the streets earlier that day. Such
kidnappings remain common in Iraq.

The deadliest toll in a terrorist strike in Iraq since the invasion
was in August 2007, when more than 400 people were slaughtered by four
co-ordinated suicide truck bombs targeting the Yazidi religious sect
in Kurdish northern Iraq

C'mon, Wolfy, the 150 (at last count) died as an "unfortunate" sacrifice for
America's protected and installed "Temple Of Democracy" !
It's all for the progressiveness of our superior way of life, our ideology,
our govermental system.
We are the shining beacon for all the world that clamors to get into line to
kiss our glowing liberating asses.
Shame on you.
You don't love Steven's America. And it is HIS America that takes credit.
The Blue States, the liberals, the leftists, dare not take any credit.
Doc ;))~
Werewolfy
2009-10-27 19:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doc
C'mon, Wolfy, the 150 (at last count) died as an "unfortunate" sacrifice for
America's protected and installed "Temple Of Democracy" !
It's all for the progressiveness of our superior way of life, our ideology,
our govermental system.
Nicely put, Doc, with irony and satire too.

I have always campaigned against this imposition of 'The American Way'
on 'nasty' Governments. It never has worked, it isn't working, and it
never will work.

But a lot of people will die as a result.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-28 04:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Doc
C'mon, Wolfy, the 150 (at last count) died as an "unfortunate" sacrifice for
America's protected and installed "Temple Of Democracy" !
It's all for the progressiveness of our superior way of life, our ideology,
our govermental system.
Nicely put, Doc, with irony and satire too.
I have always campaigned against this imposition of 'The American Way'
on 'nasty' Governments. It never has worked, it isn't working, and it
never will work.
But a lot of people will die as a result.
A lot more people were dying before the invasion. I know, no one
thinks that's important. Saddam and his sons tortured and murdered a
lot of people to maintain order. That *order* seems to be all that
matters, even if it takes torturing and murdering hundreds of
thousands of people to do it. And to think, all Saddam would have had
to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, and he'd still be there
torturing and murdering people into *order*.
Werewolfy
2009-10-28 09:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
A lot more people were dying before the invasion. I know, no one
thinks that's important. Saddam and his sons tortured and murdered a
lot of people to maintain order. That *order* seems to be all that
matters, even if it takes torturing and murdering hundreds of
thousands of people to do it. And to think, all Saddam would have had
to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, and he'd still be there
torturing and murdering people into *order*.
I know your point, Steven. It makes for a convincing discussion, and
yet I have never been able to subscribe to the idea that outside
interference in a vastly different culture, ultimately does any good,
or 'save lives'.

It reminds me of early missionaries 'converting' isolated tribes to
Christianity, when they were quite happy with their own Gods.

How long would Saddam have lasted? Who knows. Perhaps the Nation would
have rebelled, perhaps they would have removed him themselves? Then
again, Perhaps not. But that is for the people of Iraq to deal with,
not the 'world's bully' who make an arbitary decision to rectify all
of the faults seen in any (weak) Land. Faults seen through the
American perspective, not through the eyes of the inhabitants of that
Nation.

Your 'kindness' to selective 'repressed' peoples, has earned America a
loathed position amongst other Nations. You really would do better
were you to interfere less with other's affairs.

Werewolfy
Woodswun
2009-10-28 22:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
A lot more people were dying before the invasion. I know, no one
thinks that's important. Saddam and his sons tortured and murdered a
lot of people to maintain order. That *order* seems to be all that
matters, even if it takes torturing and murdering hundreds of
thousands of people to do it. And to think, all Saddam would have had
to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, and he'd still be there
torturing and murdering people into *order*.
I know your point, Steven. It makes for a convincing discussion, and
yet I have never been able to subscribe to the idea that outside
interference in a vastly different culture, ultimately does any good,
or 'save lives'.
It reminds me of early missionaries 'converting' isolated tribes to
Christianity, when they were quite happy with their own Gods.
How long would Saddam have lasted? Who knows. Perhaps the Nation would
have rebelled, perhaps they would have removed him themselves? Then
again, Perhaps not. But that is for the people of Iraq to deal with,
not the 'world's bully' who make an arbitary decision to rectify all
of the faults seen in any (weak) Land. Faults seen through the
American perspective, not through the eyes of the inhabitants of that
Nation.
Your 'kindness' to selective 'repressed' peoples, has earned America a
loathed position amongst other Nations. You really would do better
were you to interfere less with other's affairs.
Werewolfy
If people of some country want to change things badly enough, they'll
change it themselves. And if they don't want to change it badly enough
to do it themselves, they certainly will not support another country's
intervention, which almost always dooms such an endeavor to failure
and a worse ending situation.

Woods
Werewolfy
2009-10-29 01:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
If people of some country want to change things badly enough, they'll
change it themselves. And if they don't want to change it badly enough
to do it themselves, they certainly will not support another country's
intervention, which almost always dooms such an endeavor to failure
and a worse ending situation.
Exactly, Woodsy.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-29 04:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
If people of some country want to change things badly enough, they'll
change it themselves.
That's not as easy as it sounds under a brutal tyranny such as the one
Saddam Hussein ran. I know you admire the *order* he brought to that
country, courtesy of the brutal torture and/or murder of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis. One way to get yourself tortured and/or murdered
by a thug like Saddam Hussein was to threaten to overthrow him. Even
speaking to a fellow citizen could get you killed, because you could
also get tortured and/or killed for not reporting a fellow citizen's
"traitorous" speech. That's how brutal thug dictators insure they're
never overthrown -- keep everyone paranoid of everyone else. That way
no organized groups can ever get started, because no one could trust
anyone.
Post by Woodswun
And if they don't want to change it badly enough
to do it themselves, they certainly will not support another country's
intervention, which almost always dooms such an endeavor to failure
and a worse ending situation.
Did you know 64 percent of Iraqis say they prefer democracy to other
forms of government? That means the terrorists are going against the
will of the people. That's why I called their terrorist actions
desperate, because they are not supported by a majority of the Iraqi
people. The desperate terrorists' only alternative is to attempt to
terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope they fail.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=7058272&page=1
Woodswun
2009-10-29 23:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
If people of some country want to change things badly enough, they'll
change it themselves.
That's not as easy as it sounds under a brutal tyranny such as the one
Saddam Hussein ran. I know you admire the *order* he brought to that
country, courtesy of the brutal torture and/or murder of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis. One way to get yourself tortured and/or murdered
by a thug like Saddam Hussein was to threaten to overthrow him. Even
speaking to a fellow citizen could get you killed, because you could
also get tortured and/or killed for not reporting a fellow citizen's
"traitorous" speech. That's how brutal thug dictators insure they're
never overthrown -- keep everyone paranoid of everyone else. That way
no organized groups can ever get started, because no one could trust
anyone.
I didn't say it would be easy. But, my point stands - the citizens of
a country have to be ready and willing to toss out their own
leadership. If they are not, they will not support anyone who
attempts to do it for them, as history has shown.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
And if they don't want to change it badly enough
to do it themselves, they certainly will not support another country's
intervention, which almost always dooms such an endeavor to failure
and a worse ending situation.
Did you know 64 percent of Iraqis say they prefer democracy to other
forms of government? That means the terrorists are going against the
will of the people. That's why I called their terrorist actions
desperate, because they are not supported by a majority of the Iraqi
people. The desperate terrorists' only alternative is to attempt to
terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope they fail.
Well, I'm shocked that someone who would resort to terrorism would go
against the majority. Just shocked!!

(Ah ... sorry, I couldn't resist <g>. Terrorists are scum, and they
don't care about anyone but themselves).
Post by Steven Douglas
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=7058272&page=1
You know most of the minority groups have fled either from the country
or to enclosed villages, right?

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 00:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
If people of some country want to change things badly enough, they'll
change it themselves.
That's not as easy as it sounds under a brutal tyranny such as the one
Saddam Hussein ran. I know you admire the *order* he brought to that
country, courtesy of the brutal torture and/or murder of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis. One way to get yourself tortured and/or murdered
by a thug like Saddam Hussein was to threaten to overthrow him. Even
speaking to a fellow citizen could get you killed, because you could
also get tortured and/or killed for not reporting a fellow citizen's
"traitorous" speech. That's how brutal thug dictators insure they're
never overthrown -- keep everyone paranoid of everyone else. That way
no organized groups can ever get started, because no one could trust
anyone.
I didn't say it would be easy.  But, my point stands - the citizens of
a country have to be ready and willing to toss out their own
leadership.  If they are not, they will not support anyone who
attempts to do it for them, as history has shown.
Really? Germany and Japan after World War II? Did you know 64% of the
Iraqi people favor democracy over other forms of government?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
And if they don't want to change it badly enough
to do it themselves, they certainly will not support another country's
intervention, which almost always dooms such an endeavor to failure
and a worse ending situation.
Did you know 64 percent of Iraqis say they prefer democracy to other
forms of government? That means the terrorists are going against the
will of the people. That's why I called their terrorist actions
desperate, because they are not supported by a majority of the Iraqi
people. The desperate terrorists' only alternative is to attempt to
terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope they fail.
Well, I'm shocked that someone who would resort to terrorism would go
against the majority.  Just shocked!!
That's why I called it desperate. They can't win at the ballot box, so
they want to blow the ballot box (and anyone in there voting) up.
(Ah ... sorry, I couldn't resist <g>.  Terrorists are scum, and they
don't care about anyone but themselves).
That's why they need to be defeated.
Post by Steven Douglas
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=7058272&page=1
You know most of the minority groups have fled either from the country
or to enclosed villages, right?
Many of those who fled are returning. As for enclosed villages, so
what? Are you saying you'd prefer to have someone like Saddam back in
power, torturing and murdering people into order?
Woodswun
2009-10-30 00:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
If people of some country want to change things badly enough, they'll
change it themselves.
That's not as easy as it sounds under a brutal tyranny such as the one
Saddam Hussein ran. I know you admire the *order* he brought to that
country, courtesy of the brutal torture and/or murder of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis. One way to get yourself tortured and/or murdered
by a thug like Saddam Hussein was to threaten to overthrow him. Even
speaking to a fellow citizen could get you killed, because you could
also get tortured and/or killed for not reporting a fellow citizen's
"traitorous" speech. That's how brutal thug dictators insure they're
never overthrown -- keep everyone paranoid of everyone else. That way
no organized groups can ever get started, because no one could trust
anyone.
I didn't say it would be easy.  But, my point stands - the citizens of
a country have to be ready and willing to toss out their own
leadership.  If they are not, they will not support anyone who
attempts to do it for them, as history has shown.
Really? Germany and Japan after World War II? Did you know 64% of the
Iraqi people favor democracy over other forms of government?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
And if they don't want to change it badly enough
to do it themselves, they certainly will not support another country's
intervention, which almost always dooms such an endeavor to failure
and a worse ending situation.
Did you know 64 percent of Iraqis say they prefer democracy to other
forms of government? That means the terrorists are going against the
will of the people. That's why I called their terrorist actions
desperate, because they are not supported by a majority of the Iraqi
people. The desperate terrorists' only alternative is to attempt to
terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope they fail.
Well, I'm shocked that someone who would resort to terrorism would go
against the majority.  Just shocked!!
That's why I called it desperate. They can't win at the ballot box, so
they want to blow the ballot box (and anyone in there voting) up.
(Ah ... sorry, I couldn't resist <g>.  Terrorists are scum, and they
don't care about anyone but themselves).
That's why they need to be defeated.
Post by Steven Douglas
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=7058272&page=1
You know most of the minority groups have fled either from the country
or to enclosed villages, right?
Many of those who fled are returning. As for enclosed villages, so
what? Are you saying you'd prefer to have someone like Saddam back in
power, torturing and murdering people into order?
I'm saying that he was not a high priority for the safety of Americans
at the time of the invasion.

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 01:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
If people of some country want to change things badly enough, they'll
change it themselves.
That's not as easy as it sounds under a brutal tyranny such as the one
Saddam Hussein ran. I know you admire the *order* he brought to that
country, courtesy of the brutal torture and/or murder of hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis. One way to get yourself tortured and/or murdered
by a thug like Saddam Hussein was to threaten to overthrow him. Even
speaking to a fellow citizen could get you killed, because you could
also get tortured and/or killed for not reporting a fellow citizen's
"traitorous" speech. That's how brutal thug dictators insure they're
never overthrown -- keep everyone paranoid of everyone else. That way
no organized groups can ever get started, because no one could trust
anyone.
I didn't say it would be easy.  But, my point stands - the citizens of
a country have to be ready and willing to toss out their own
leadership.  If they are not, they will not support anyone who
attempts to do it for them, as history has shown.
Really? Germany and Japan after World War II? Did you know 64% of the
Iraqi people favor democracy over other forms of government?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Woodswun
And if they don't want to change it badly enough
to do it themselves, they certainly will not support another country's
intervention, which almost always dooms such an endeavor to failure
and a worse ending situation.
Did you know 64 percent of Iraqis say they prefer democracy to other
forms of government? That means the terrorists are going against the
will of the people. That's why I called their terrorist actions
desperate, because they are not supported by a majority of the Iraqi
people. The desperate terrorists' only alternative is to attempt to
terrorize the Iraqi people into submission. I hope they fail.
Well, I'm shocked that someone who would resort to terrorism would go
against the majority.  Just shocked!!
That's why I called it desperate. They can't win at the ballot box, so
they want to blow the ballot box (and anyone in there voting) up.
(Ah ... sorry, I couldn't resist <g>.  Terrorists are scum, and they
don't care about anyone but themselves).
That's why they need to be defeated.
Post by Steven Douglas
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=7058272&page=1
You know most of the minority groups have fled either from the country
or to enclosed villages, right?
Many of those who fled are returning. As for enclosed villages, so
what? Are you saying you'd prefer to have someone like Saddam back in
power, torturing and murdering people into order?
I'm saying that he was not a high priority for the safety of Americans
at the time of the invasion.
That's not what Democratic Leader (at the time) Richard Gephardt said.
That's not what Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Jay
Rockefeller said. That's not what Senator and future (at the time)
Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards said. Rockefeller and Edwards
said Saddam was an imminent threat. Gephardt and Edwards said they did
not listen to Bush for their WMD intelligence, but went directly to
the CIA director and other former Clinton officials. They became
convinced Saddam was not just a threat, but an imminent threat.
Steven Douglas
2009-10-29 04:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
A lot more people were dying before the invasion. I know, no one
thinks that's important. Saddam and his sons tortured and murdered a
lot of people to maintain order. That *order* seems to be all that
matters, even if it takes torturing and murdering hundreds of
thousands of people to do it. And to think, all Saddam would have had
to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, and he'd still be there
torturing and murdering people into *order*.
I know your point, Steven. It makes for a convincing discussion, and
yet I have never been able to subscribe to the idea that outside
interference in a vastly different culture, ultimately does any good,
or 'save lives'.
It reminds me of early missionaries 'converting' isolated tribes to
Christianity, when they were quite happy with their own Gods.
How long would Saddam have lasted? Who knows. Perhaps the Nation would
have rebelled, perhaps they would have removed him themselves? Then
again, Perhaps not. But that is for the people of Iraq to deal with,
not the 'world's bully' who make an arbitary decision to rectify all
of the faults seen in any (weak) Land. Faults seen through the
American perspective, not through the eyes of the inhabitants of that
Nation.
The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him.
Post by Werewolfy
Your 'kindness' to selective 'repressed' peoples, has earned America a
loathed position amongst other Nations. You really would do better
were you to interfere less with other's affairs.
Your country was just as involved in the removal of Saddam as ours
was. We continue to have a very good relationship with your country,
as well as with France and Germany. The current leaders of France and
Germany were on very good terms with President Bush, and that
continues with President Obama. We're on good terms with Japan, as
well as many Eastern European countries.
Werewolfy
2009-10-29 08:36:26 UTC
Permalink
"The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him."
Every schoolboy knows that Arab people have a way of using hyperboles
when discussing themselves, Steven. From pretending to own great
weapons, to predicting, 'The mother of all battles'...it's how they
describe things. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I never
did believe Iraq held stocks of masive lethal weapons. Not finding
any, came as no suprise whatsoever.
No, I don't accept the 'official' excuse for invasion, nor do I
believe that even your Military Intelligence actually gave much
credence to his claims. The US campaigned long and hard with the UN in
order to achieve a rather oddly worded mandate which didn't really say
'Invade them', but could be read in all sorts of ways. I well re-call
the pressure the US was placing on Nations to vote for their attack on
Iraq.
Non-Co-operation...it's second nature to an Arab Leader, it's part of
their personea..as much as is their Religion. Anyone could see his was
playing with you, defying then pulling back a little.
No, I don't think the world believed about WMD, I do believe that your
Government did everything it could to project that unlikely
possibility onto the public as being a certain fact.
"Your country was just as involved in the removal of Saddam as ours
was. We continue to have a very good relationship with your country,
as well as with France and Germany. The current leaders of France and
Germany were on very good terms with President Bush, and that
continues with President Obama. We're on good terms with Japan, as
well as many Eastern European countries"
Odd how people keep telling me that. It's a rather well known
fact..and it's as wrong as America invading. There was no support from
the people of the UK though.
Your relationship with France was like a little child having it's toy
stolen, when France failed to join in the murdering excursion. US/
French relationship hit a record low then. Still eating 'Freedom
Fries'?
The 'good terms' you speak of is between Governments, and is no more
than a veneer...allied to trade in the main part.

It's not about Governments. It's about people. The standing of an
American throughout the World has fallen from admiration 50 years ago,
through dislike, and down to hatred in the last decade, It is how
Americans are pervceived. You have become a gaudy Nation of greedy
people, bullies. The world may well cede to a bully, but that doesn't
mean they like you.

Werewolfy
Woodswun
2009-10-29 23:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
"The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him."
Every schoolboy knows that Arab people have a way of using hyperboles
when discussing themselves, Steven. From pretending to own great
weapons, to predicting, 'The mother of all battles'...it's how they
describe things. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I never
did believe Iraq held stocks of masive lethal weapons. Not finding
any, came as no suprise whatsoever.
I thought they may have some - that we'd given/sold them in their war
against Iran. Saddam was much too self-absorbed to use the oil for
food money for weapons when there were palaces to be built for
himself.
Post by Werewolfy
No, I don't accept the 'official' excuse for invasion, nor do I
believe that even your Military Intelligence actually gave much
credence to his claims. The US campaigned long and hard with the UN in
order to achieve a rather oddly worded mandate which didn't really say
'Invade them', but could be read in all sorts of ways. I well re-call
the pressure the US was placing on Nations to vote for their attack on
Iraq.
Yep.
Post by Werewolfy
Non-Co-operation...it's second nature to an Arab Leader, it's part of
their personea..as much as is their Religion. Anyone could see his was
playing with you, defying then pulling back a little.
They are all nuts!
Post by Werewolfy
No, I don't think the world believed about WMD, I do believe that your
Government did everything it could to project that unlikely
possibility onto the public as being a certain fact.
"Your country was just as involved in the removal of Saddam as ours
was. We continue to have a very good relationship with your country,
as well as with France and Germany. The current leaders of France and
Germany were on very good terms with President Bush, and that
continues with President Obama. We're on good terms with Japan, as
well as many Eastern European countries"
Odd how people keep telling me that. It's a rather well known
fact..and it's as wrong as America invading. There was no support from
the people of the UK though.
Your relationship with France was like a little child having it's toy
stolen, when France failed to join in the murdering excursion. US/
French relationship hit a record low then. Still eating 'Freedom
Fries'?
I think they are. Un.real, huh?
Post by Werewolfy
The 'good terms' you speak of is between Governments, and is no more
than a veneer...allied to trade in the main part.
It's not about Governments. It's about people. The standing of an
American throughout the World has fallen from admiration 50 years ago,
through dislike, and down to hatred in the last decade, It is how
Americans are pervceived. You have become a gaudy Nation of greedy
people, bullies. The world may well cede to a bully, but that doesn't
mean they like you.
Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til
it's gone? :-(

Woods
Post by Werewolfy
Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 00:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
"The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him."
Every schoolboy knows that Arab people have a way of using hyperboles
when discussing themselves, Steven. From pretending to own great
weapons, to predicting, 'The mother of all battles'...it's how they
describe things. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I never
did believe Iraq held stocks of masive lethal weapons. Not finding
any, came as no suprise whatsoever.
There were stockpiles of weapons he was known to have had, for which
he never accounted, and that's what Hans Blix was looking for in late
2002 and early 2003. But Saddam failed to cooperate, as Hans Blix said
repeatedly (though, for some odd reason, a lot of people believed the
exact opposite of the truth to be the truth).
Post by Werewolfy
No, I don't accept the 'official' excuse for invasion, nor do I
believe that even your Military Intelligence actually gave much
credence to his claims.
It wasn't just our intelligence, it was yours and that of several
other nations. They all said the same thing, and that's because Saddam
wanted them to believe he had those weapons. It turned out to be a big
miscalculation on his part.
Post by Werewolfy
The US campaigned long and hard with the UN in
order to achieve a rather oddly worded mandate which didn't really say
'Invade them', but could be read in all sorts of ways. I well re-call
the pressure the US was placing on Nations to vote for their attack on
Iraq.
Non-Co-operation...it's second nature to an Arab Leader, it's part of
their personea..as much as is their Religion. Anyone could see his was
playing with you, defying then pulling back a little.
No, I don't think the world believed about WMD, I do believe that your
Government did everything it could to project that unlikely
possibility onto the public as being a certain fact.
Your government as well.
Post by Werewolfy
"Your country was just as involved in the removal of Saddam as ours
was. We continue to have a very good relationship with your country,
as well as with France and Germany. The current leaders of France and
Germany were on very good terms with President Bush, and that
continues with President Obama. We're on good terms with Japan, as
well as many Eastern European countries"
Odd how people keep telling me that. It's a rather well known
fact..and it's as wrong as America invading. There was no support from
the people of the UK though.
Your relationship with France was like a little child having it's toy
stolen, when France failed to join in the murdering excursion. US/
French relationship hit a record low then. Still eating 'Freedom
Fries'?
Who used that term?
Post by Werewolfy
The 'good terms' you speak of is between Governments, and is no more
than a veneer...allied to trade in the main part.
It's not about Governments. It's about people. The standing of an
American throughout the World has fallen from admiration 50 years ago,
Not really. European anti-Americanism is nothing new. I'm sure you
know that.
Post by Werewolfy
through dislike, and down to hatred in the last decade, It is how
Americans are pervceived. You have become a gaudy Nation of greedy
people, bullies. The world may well cede to a bully, but that doesn't
mean they like you.
Hey, we did what the world wanted and elected Barack Obama. That means
the rest of the world should automatically like us now, right?
Woodswun
2009-10-30 00:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
"The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him."
Every schoolboy knows that Arab people have a way of using hyperboles
when discussing themselves, Steven. From pretending to own great
weapons, to predicting, 'The mother of all battles'...it's how they
describe things. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I never
did believe Iraq held stocks of masive lethal weapons. Not finding
any, came as no suprise whatsoever.
There were stockpiles of weapons he was known to have had, for which
he never accounted, and that's what Hans Blix was looking for in late
2002 and early 2003. But Saddam failed to cooperate, as Hans Blix said
repeatedly (though, for some odd reason, a lot of people believed the
exact opposite of the truth to be the truth).
The source of information for those stockpiles of weapons also said
that they'd all been destroyed - it was in the very same document.
Bush picked out what he wanted.

Woods
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
No, I don't accept the 'official' excuse for invasion, nor do I
believe that even your Military Intelligence actually gave much
credence to his claims.
It wasn't just our intelligence, it was yours and that of several
other nations. They all said the same thing, and that's because Saddam
wanted them to believe he had those weapons. It turned out to be a big
miscalculation on his part.
Post by Werewolfy
The US campaigned long and hard with the UN in
order to achieve a rather oddly worded mandate which didn't really say
'Invade them', but could be read in all sorts of ways. I well re-call
the pressure the US was placing on Nations to vote for their attack on
Iraq.
Non-Co-operation...it's second nature to an Arab Leader, it's part of
their personea..as much as is their Religion. Anyone could see his was
playing with you, defying then pulling back a little.
No, I don't think the world believed about WMD, I do believe that your
Government did everything it could to project that unlikely
possibility onto the public as being a certain fact.
Your government as well.
Post by Werewolfy
"Your country was just as involved in the removal of Saddam as ours
was. We continue to have a very good relationship with your country,
as well as with France and Germany. The current leaders of France and
Germany were on very good terms with President Bush, and that
continues with President Obama. We're on good terms with Japan, as
well as many Eastern European countries"
Odd how people keep telling me that. It's a rather well known
fact..and it's as wrong as America invading. There was no support from
the people of the UK though.
Your relationship with France was like a little child having it's toy
stolen, when France failed to join in the murdering excursion. US/
French relationship hit a record low then. Still eating 'Freedom
Fries'?
Who used that term?
Post by Werewolfy
The 'good terms' you speak of is between Governments, and is no more
than a veneer...allied to trade in the main part.
It's not about Governments. It's about people. The standing of an
American throughout the World has fallen from admiration 50 years ago,
Not really. European anti-Americanism is nothing new. I'm sure you
know that.
Post by Werewolfy
through dislike, and down to hatred in the last decade, It is how
Americans are pervceived. You have become a gaudy Nation of greedy
people, bullies. The world may well cede to a bully, but that doesn't
mean they like you.
Hey, we did what the world wanted and elected Barack Obama. That means
the rest of the world should automatically like us now, right?
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 00:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
"The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him."
Every schoolboy knows that Arab people have a way of using hyperboles
when discussing themselves, Steven. From pretending to own great
weapons, to predicting, 'The mother of all battles'...it's how they
describe things. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I never
did believe Iraq held stocks of masive lethal weapons. Not finding
any, came as no suprise whatsoever.
There were stockpiles of weapons he was known to have had, for which
he never accounted, and that's what Hans Blix was looking for in late
2002 and early 2003. But Saddam failed to cooperate, as Hans Blix said
repeatedly (though, for some odd reason, a lot of people believed the
exact opposite of the truth to be the truth).
The source of information for those stockpiles of weapons also said
that they'd all been destroyed - it was in the very same document.
Bush picked out what he wanted.
Can you show me this document?
Werewolfy
2009-10-30 01:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Hey, we did what the world wanted and elected Barack Obama. That means
the rest of the world should automatically like us now, right?
Give over, Steven. No-one in the world gives a damn about who you
elect. It's just you, Americans who seem to think your election as
being so important.
Your politics are unknown beyond America..other than that they are
tedious, long and damned boring.

I...and all who can add numbers up beyond ten, couldn't care less
about your elections.

You were liked. You became tolerable. You progressed through to
unpopular. Now you are regarded with distain. That's how people from
beyond your shores view you all.

What do you mean, 'who used the term, 'Freedom Fries?' Your memory
cannot be that bad, surely?

I wish you would stop making the point that the UK were involved. They
were not. The Government involved the Nation, the people were totally
against it.

I couldn't care less about the lunatic stories anyone's 'Military
Intelligence' reveals to the world. If you believe it, you are as
crazy as those distributing the nonsense. They will tell you whatever
pleases them and will sway people to the Governments view. The truth
has nothing to do with it.
Do you really think Military Intelligence tells you it's secrets? Of
course not, it's all simple mind-games to garnish support.
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 01:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
Hey, we did what the world wanted and elected Barack Obama. That means
the rest of the world should automatically like us now, right?
Give over, Steven. No-one in the world gives a damn about who you
elect. It's just you, Americans who seem to think your election as
being so important.
Your politics are unknown beyond America..other than that they are
tedious, long and damned boring.
I remember reading an article from a UK newspaper (I think the
Guardian) about a year ago, which people of various countries were
polled to determine who they wanted to win the U.S. election. Obama
won overwhelmingly in each of the countries polled, yours among them.
Post by Werewolfy
I...and all who can add numbers up beyond ten, couldn't care less
about your elections.
You were liked. You became tolerable. You progressed through to
unpopular. Now you are regarded with distain. That's how people from
beyond your shores view you all.
That's probably why President Obama has been going around the world
apologizing for America.
Post by Werewolfy
What do you mean, 'who used the term, 'Freedom Fries?' Your memory
cannot be that bad, surely?
You addressed it to me, as if I'd used the term. I did not.
Post by Werewolfy
I wish you would stop making the point that the UK were involved. They
were not. The Government involved the Nation, the people were totally
against it.
I was very careful to say "your government as well."
Post by Werewolfy
I couldn't care less about the lunatic stories anyone's 'Military
Intelligence' reveals to the world. If you believe it, you are as
crazy as those distributing the nonsense. They will tell you whatever
pleases them and will sway people to the Governments view. The truth
has nothing to do with it.
Do you really think Military Intelligence tells you it's secrets? Of
course not, it's all simple mind-games to garnish support.
As I said, it wasn't just our intelligence. It was your government's
as well, along with several others.
Werewolfy
2009-10-30 01:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
I remember reading an article from a UK newspaper (I think the
Guardian) about a year ago, which people of various countries were
polled to determine who they wanted to win the U.S. election. Obama
won overwhelmingly in each of the countries polled, yours among them.
The press are always filling in space by stupid 'polls'. It keeps the
idiots busy. There are polls on which soap one buys, polls on all
sorts of things. The 'result' means nothing at all. No one cares,
Steven..no one.
Post by Steven Douglas
As I said, it wasn't just our intelligence. It was your government's
as well, along with several others.
Couldn't care less if it was intelligence from Mars. They release the
line a government want to garner support from the public. Believing
such reports is daft.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 01:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
I remember reading an article from a UK newspaper (I think the
Guardian) about a year ago, which people of various countries were
polled to determine who they wanted to win the U.S. election. Obama
won overwhelmingly in each of the countries polled, yours among them.
The press are always filling in space by stupid 'polls'. It keeps the
idiots busy. There are polls on which soap one buys, polls on all
sorts of things. The 'result' means nothing at all. No one cares,
Steven..no one.
The interest in our election by people in other nations was a topic on
this group last year. I remember Doc pointing out to me that people in
other nations wanted Obama to win, supposedly with overwhelming
numbers. And here I thought all those people would be happy that we
elected the guy they favored.
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
As I said, it wasn't just our intelligence. It was your government's
as well, along with several others.
Couldn't care less if it was intelligence from Mars. They release the
line a government want to garner support from the public.
That's not how it works in this country, no matter what you hear.
Werewolfy
2009-10-30 02:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
The interest in our election by people in other nations was a topic on
this group last year. I remember Doc pointing out to me that people in
other nations wanted Obama to win, supposedly with overwhelming
numbers. And here I thought all those people would be happy that we
elected the guy they favored.
Doesn't matter what Doc did, or did not say. It;'s a simple fact. The
Press give great coverage to your tedious lengthy election, but no one
cares who 'wins'. No one knows anything about the candidates to care
sufficiently. No one talks about your election, no one has in-depth
conversation about party policies. It's your Country, your vote and
your decision...why should anyone care?
I still 'don't care;' that Obama has won. It means nothing to
me..neither do your political labels. It may suprise you, but the
world does not revolve around your gaudy election process. The press
may well fill up space with 'opinion', but no one cares, Steven.
Post by Steven Douglas
That's not how it works in this country, no matter what you hear.
Believe whatever you are fed if that's what you want. I prefer
scepticism.

Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 13:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
The interest in our election by people in other nations was a topic on
this group last year. I remember Doc pointing out to me that people in
other nations wanted Obama to win, supposedly with overwhelming
numbers. And here I thought all those people would be happy that we
elected the guy they favored.
Doesn't matter what Doc did, or did not say. It;'s a simple fact. The
Press give great coverage to your tedious lengthy election, but no one
cares who 'wins'. No one knows anything about the candidates to care
sufficiently. No one talks about your election, no one has in-depth
conversation about party policies. It's your Country, your vote and
your decision...why should anyone care?
I still 'don't care;' that Obama has won. It means nothing to
me..neither do your political labels. It may suprise you, but the
world does not revolve around your gaudy election process. The press
may well fill up space with 'opinion', but no one cares, Steven.
I'm glad to know this. I was under the mistaken impression that many
people in other parts of the world were rooting for Obama. I'm
actually glad to know that's not true.
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
That's not how it works in this country, no matter what you hear.
Believe whatever you are fed if that's what you want. I prefer
scepticism.
If I believed whatever I'm fed, I'd believe Bush lied about WMD in
Iraq. I'd believe Bush and Cheney went to the CIA and ordered the
analysts to come up with false WMD intelligence. I'd believe Bush did
the Iraq invasion on a whim, all by himself while Democrats in
Congress tried valiantly to stop him. But I don't believe any of that,
even though all of that passes as "common knowledge" in this country
these days.
Werewolfy
2009-10-30 16:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
If I believed whatever I'm fed, I'd believe Bush lied about WMD in
Iraq. I'd believe Bush and Cheney went to the CIA and ordered the
analysts to come up with false WMD intelligence. I'd believe Bush did
the Iraq invasion on a whim, all by himself while Democrats in
Congress tried valiantly to stop him. But I don't believe any of that,
even though all of that passes as "common knowledge" in this country
these days
Beware of 'Common Knowledge'. It's usually 'common, biased opinion'.

Some say it is 'common knowledge' that naughty aliens swoop from the
sky and abduct people. Other say America blew up the Twin Towers for a
reason to attack Muslims. Still others see huge monsters swimming in
the sea.
The common knowledge of people from mediaval times looks distinctly
dubious in this Century.

I believe things I know..not what I am told, Steven. I have opinions
that the world is not as straight-forward as any politician would
suggest. I don't believe newspapers, they distort their reports for
sensationalism.

Common sense is another thing altogether. It allows one to doubt, to
hold a 'most probable' view, whilst allowing for fresh evidence to
confirm or dismiss the initial idea.

I usually follow that line, the one which provides the most probable
explanation satisfactory to me, and yet I am willing to change that
view on receipt of further information.

That 'most probable' view includes the deliberate dissemination of
'informaton', worded to a Politicains advantage in winng over the
public, not losing votes and achieving his own agenda.

To alter that, I would need new evidence to contradict the statements
and advice made public via Military Intelligence. I don't believe any
of it, never have and probably never will. It's all simple
manipulation of the electorate.

Werewolfy
Woodswun
2009-10-29 23:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
A lot more people were dying before the invasion. I know, no one
thinks that's important. Saddam and his sons tortured and murdered a
lot of people to maintain order. That *order* seems to be all that
matters, even if it takes torturing and murdering hundreds of
thousands of people to do it. And to think, all Saddam would have had
to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, and he'd still be there
torturing and murdering people into *order*.
I know your point, Steven. It makes for a convincing discussion, and
yet I have never been able to subscribe to the idea that outside
interference in a vastly different culture, ultimately does any good,
or 'save lives'.
It reminds me of early missionaries 'converting' isolated tribes to
Christianity, when they were quite happy with their own Gods.
How long would Saddam have lasted? Who knows. Perhaps the Nation would
have rebelled, perhaps they would have removed him themselves? Then
again, Perhaps not. But that is for the people of Iraq to deal with,
not the 'world's bully' who make an arbitary decision to rectify all
of the faults seen in any (weak) Land. Faults seen through the
American perspective, not through the eyes of the inhabitants of that
Nation.
The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him.
We didn't care about how Saddam treated his people when we supported
him in his war against Iran, so that was not a reason. It was a
rational that was trumped up after the fact that there was absolutely
not one shred of evidence found of WMDs or attempts to produce WMDs.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Your 'kindness' to selective 'repressed' peoples, has earned America a
loathed position amongst other Nations. You really would do better
were you to interfere less with other's affairs.
Your country was just as involved in the removal of Saddam as ours
was. We continue to have a very good relationship with your country,
as well as with France and Germany. The current leaders of France and
Germany were on very good terms with President Bush, and that
continues with President Obama. We're on good terms with Japan, as
well as many Eastern European countries.
Wolfy didn't support Blair in his selling out to Bush.

Woods
Steven Douglas
2009-10-30 00:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Post by Steven Douglas
A lot more people were dying before the invasion. I know, no one
thinks that's important. Saddam and his sons tortured and murdered a
lot of people to maintain order. That *order* seems to be all that
matters, even if it takes torturing and murdering hundreds of
thousands of people to do it. And to think, all Saddam would have had
to do was cooperate with the UN inspectors, and he'd still be there
torturing and murdering people into *order*.
I know your point, Steven. It makes for a convincing discussion, and
yet I have never been able to subscribe to the idea that outside
interference in a vastly different culture, ultimately does any good,
or 'save lives'.
It reminds me of early missionaries 'converting' isolated tribes to
Christianity, when they were quite happy with their own Gods.
How long would Saddam have lasted? Who knows. Perhaps the Nation would
have rebelled, perhaps they would have removed him themselves? Then
again, Perhaps not. But that is for the people of Iraq to deal with,
not the 'world's bully' who make an arbitary decision to rectify all
of the faults seen in any (weak) Land. Faults seen through the
American perspective, not through the eyes of the inhabitants of that
Nation.
The main reason for removing Saddam was that he led the world to
believe he had WMD, along his refusal to cooperate with the UN
inspectors. His maltreatment of his people was a secondary reason,
which alone would not have been reason to remove him.
We didn't care about how Saddam treated his people when we supported
him in his war against Iran, so that was not a reason.  It was a
rational that was trumped up after the fact that there was absolutely
not one shred of evidence found of WMDs or attempts to produce WMDs.
As I've told you at least three times in the past, Bush went to the UN
six months BEFORE the invasion, and gave a list of reasons for
Saddam's removal. Among those reasons was his mistreatment of the
Iraqi people. Here it is again, and I'll keep posting it every time
you say it was only after the fact that these reasons were introduced.
You really should read about Saddam's mistreatment of the Iraqi
people. You might stop admiring the way he kept order if you actually
knew what he did, especially to children and women:

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2002

A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for
President George W. Bush's September 12th speech to the United Nations
General Assembly.

The Administration will periodically provide information on these and
other aspects of the threat posed to the international community by
Saddam Hussein.

Table of Contents

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People

Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners

Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Return Stolen Property

Saddam Hussein's Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions

A Decade of Deception and Defiance

http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/iraqdecade.pdf
Post by Woodswun
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Werewolfy
Your 'kindness' to selective 'repressed' peoples, has earned America a
loathed position amongst other Nations. You really would do better
were you to interfere less with other's affairs.
Your country was just as involved in the removal of Saddam as ours
was. We continue to have a very good relationship with your country,
as well as with France and Germany. The current leaders of France and
Germany were on very good terms with President Bush, and that
continues with President Obama. We're on good terms with Japan, as
well as many Eastern European countries.
Wolfy didn't support Blair in his selling out to Bush.
Will anyone ever explain to me why leftists believe Bush was the
biggest moron who has ever occupied the White House, yet he was also
the greatest master manipulator of all time? Not everyone believes
Blair sold out to Bush:

Opinion - Brendan O’Neill

Headline "Is Bush Blair's poodle?"

The Bush administration is heir to the ‘humanitarian warfare’
masterminded by arch-interventionist Tony Blair.

[excerpt] It is worth remembering that Blair, often in tandem with
Clinton, was executing bloody interventions before his alleged
‘master’ Bush entered the White House. He was a key architect of the
NATO-led Kosovo bombing campaign in 1999. He sent British troops to
Sierra Leone in 2000. And he had already bombed Iraq on the dubious
grounds that it had WMD that posed a threat to world peace in 1998, a
full five years before doing so again with Bush in 2003.

These interventions do not only show that Blair is more than capable
of launching wars without first being schmoozed by Bush over a beer in
his Texan ranch – they were also a blueprint for Bush’s later wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Blair, together with Clinton, wrote the script
for today’s new forms of humanitarian intervention, which profess to
be about delivering democracy, upholding human rights or liberating
people from tyrannical regimes. Bush is lambasted for two aspects of
his foreign policy in particular: for his naive and pseudo-religious
view that the world can be split into Good and Evil, and for his
cavalier attitude towards state sovereignty and the authority of the
United Nations. Both of these traits he inherited from the Blair era
of humanitarian warfare. [end excerpt]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1316/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...