Raptor

Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and anyone
else who wants to chime in.

Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still going
well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

pigo

"Raptor" <lawall@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:eaj8ok$p46$3@news.xmission.com...
> Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and
> anyone else who wants to chime in.
>
> Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still
> going well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?

Do you think that the wmd's that they found are "the other" wmd's?
Would they make you less dead?

GMAN

In article <eaj8ok$p46$3@news.xmission.com>, Raptor <lawall@xmission.com> wrote:
>Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and anyone
>else who wants to chime in.
>
>Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still going
>well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?
>
Oh man, you must be bored to want to start a fight!!! Just kidding!!!!


Anyways, I dont have to be specifically either a Bush or Republican supporter
to support doing what is right. I felt that we needed to remove Saddam. So did
Kerry, Hillary and Kennedy BTW!!!!

I feel that the Extremist Muslims are the ones out of control and I feel the
whole of Europe are hypocrits and pussies for not standing up and doing what
is right. It is Hamass and all of the extremist groups that are the problem
here, not Israel or the US or Bush or whatever. Israel just wants to be left
alone, yet you have the whole of the middle east trying to kill them with
hatred not seen since Hitler walked the earth.

Thant Tessman

Raptor wrote:

> Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and anyone
> else who wants to chime in.
>
> Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still going
> well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?

You're a wimp. The Israeli government is spending U.S. tax dollars on
U.S. weapons to deliberately bomb civilian targets in northern
Lebanon--airports, bridges, power plants, grain silos, milk
factories--killing hundreds of innocent civilians--around a third of
which are children--some of which are Americans--all apparently with the
eager support of bloodthirsty Bush supporters.

Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is all in response to the
"kidnapping" of two Israeli soldiers is a self-deluded fool. This has
all been planned since at least 1996:

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

For the people who made the Iraq war happen, Iraq was not, and still is
not a mistake. Iraq was just the beginning, and everything is going
according to plan. Syria and Iran are next.

BTW, in case anyone is foolish enough to think that it's merely a matter
of who's in office, one should know that the law that required the phone
companies to build their networks to allow the Bush administration to
wiretap them indiscriminately was passed during the Clinton administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...nforcement_Act

And check this out before it disappears from the net again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7T4D...0news%20israel

Since it's from Fox, you know you can trust it...

pigo

"Thant Tessman" <adm@standarddeviance.com> wrote in message
news:eak2dp$bke$1@news.xmission.com...

> You're a wimp. The Israeli government is spending U.S. tax dollars
> on U.S. weapons to deliberately bomb civilian targets in northern
> Lebanon--airports, bridges, power plants, grain silos, milk
> factories--killing hundreds of innocent civilians--around a third
> of which are children--some of which are Americans--all apparently
> with the eager support of bloodthirsty Bush supporters.

There is no distinction between civilians and hezbollah. And
hezbollah does that specifically to cause "civilian" casualties for
their propoganda war.

> Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is all in response to the
> "kidnapping" of two Israeli soldiers is a self-deluded fool. This
> has all been planned since at least 1996:

The kidnapping of the soldiers was the last straw after years of
missiles indiscriminately lobbed into Israeli villages and the deaths
of many real civilians.

But you already knew that.

adm@standarddeviance.com

pigo wrote:

> There is no distinction between civilians and hezbollah. [...]
> The kidnapping of the soldiers was the last straw after years of
> missiles indiscriminately lobbed into Israeli villages and the deaths
> of many real civilians.

Your obliviousness to your own double standard is truly breathtaking.

pigo

<adm@standarddeviance.com> wrote in message
news:1154356431.344398.41830@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> pigo wrote:
>
>> There is no distinction between civilians and hezbollah. [...]
>> The kidnapping of the soldiers was the last straw after years of
>> missiles indiscriminately lobbed into Israeli villages and the
>> deaths
>> of many real civilians.
>
> Your obliviousness to your own double standard is truly
> breathtaking.

Israel has a military that dresses and bases seperate from the
population. But the missles and homicide bombers deliberately choose
the civilian population that is unprepared to fight back.

Hezbollah on the other hand fires from civiilan neighborhoods and
deliberately dresses and blends into the civilian population. And
also keeps civilians from leaving areas of conflict in order to
maintain the shield effect.

Your attempt to cloud the issue is expected from a supporter of the
lowest form of human life yet to inhabit the planet.

GMAN

In article <beydndhhm425WlPZnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "pigo" <pigopowderPANTS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><adm@standarddeviance.com> wrote in message
>news:1154356431.344398.41830@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> pigo wrote:
>>
>>> There is no distinction between civilians and hezbollah. [...]
>>> The kidnapping of the soldiers was the last straw after years of
>>> missiles indiscriminately lobbed into Israeli villages and the
>>> deaths
>>> of many real civilians.
>>
>> Your obliviousness to your own double standard is truly
>> breathtaking.
>
>Israel has a military that dresses and bases seperate from the
>population. But the missles and homicide bombers deliberately choose
>the civilian population that is unprepared to fight back.
>
>Hezbollah on the other hand fires from civiilan neighborhoods and
>deliberately dresses and blends into the civilian population. And
>also keeps civilians from leaving areas of conflict in order to
>maintain the shield effect.

In other words, Hezbollah and all of the other terror groups act tough but in
reality are a bunch of cowards!


>
>Your attempt to cloud the issue is expected from a supporter of the
>lowest form of human life yet to inhabit the planet.
>
>

Democrats want to live in the bronze age like Hezbollah

Raptor

pigo wrote:
> "Raptor" <lawall@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:eaj8ok$p46$3@news.xmission.com...
>> Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and
>> anyone else who wants to chime in.
>>
>> Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still
>> going well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?
>
> Do you think that the wmd's that they found are "the other" wmd's?
> Would they make you less dead?

Given that these were spcifically classified by the Pentagon as pre-1991
weapons, many of them degraded over the years, they WOULD make me less dead.

The WMD we went to war over were not found. As far as we know, they
never existed.

Care to answer my questions?

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Raptor

Thant Tessman wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>> Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and anyone
>> else who wants to chime in.
>>
>> Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still
>> going well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?
>
> You're a wimp.

I am? What is it about attempting to start a dialog (as a veiled attempt
at confrontation) makes me a wimp?

The Israeli government is spending U.S. tax dollars on
> U.S. weapons to deliberately bomb civilian targets in northern
> Lebanon--airports, bridges, power plants, grain silos, milk
> factories--killing hundreds of innocent civilians--around a third of
> which are children--some of which are Americans--all apparently with the
> eager support of bloodthirsty Bush supporters.
>
> Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is all in response to the
> "kidnapping" of two Israeli soldiers is a self-deluded fool. This has
> all been planned since at least 1996:
>
> http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

Except I'm not convinced that the Israelies are so willing to do our
bidding, especially given the risks to themselves. Do you REALLY think
the clown troupe in charge is capable of enacting such a clever conspiracy?

> For the people who made the Iraq war happen, Iraq was not, and still is
> not a mistake. Iraq was just the beginning, and everything is going
> according to plan. Syria and Iran are next.

Over my dead body! (Not quite, but I'm not going to stand by and let the
lying, dishonorable, traitorous dumbass in the White House extend his
screw-up.)

> BTW, in case anyone is foolish enough to think that it's merely a matter
> of who's in office, one should know that the law that required the phone
> companies to build their networks to allow the Bush administration to
> wiretap them indiscriminately was passed during the Clinton administration:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...nforcement_Act

Warrants, warrants, warrants!

> And check this out before it disappears from the net again:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7T4D...0news%20israel
>
> Since it's from Fox, you know you can trust it...

Sounds too much like Mena, Arkansas to me.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Raptor

What sign is there that the situation will improve any time in the
foreseeable future? What sign is there that the situation in Iraq will
not be worse next (week/month/year) than it is now?

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Thant Tessman

GMAN wrote:
> In article <beydndhhm425WlPZnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "pigo" <pigopowderPANTS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <adm@standarddeviance.com> wrote in message
>> news:1154356431.344398.41830@i42g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>>> pigo wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no distinction between civilians and hezbollah. [...]
>>>> The kidnapping of the soldiers was the last straw after years of
>>>> missiles indiscriminately lobbed into Israeli villages and the
>>>> deaths
>>>> of many real civilians.
>>> Your obliviousness to your own double standard is truly
>>> breathtaking.
>> Israel has a military that dresses and bases seperate from the
>> population. But the missles and homicide bombers deliberately choose
>> the civilian population that is unprepared to fight back.
>>
>> Hezbollah on the other hand fires from civiilan neighborhoods and
>> deliberately dresses and blends into the civilian population. And
>> also keeps civilians from leaving areas of conflict in order to
>> maintain the shield effect.
>
> In other words, Hezbollah and all of the other terror groups act tough but in
> reality are a bunch of cowards!

Yet it's brave to bomb civilians in a UN refugee camp from the safety of
fighter jets? Yes, Hezbollah's targeting of civilians is deplorable, but
your perception of what's really happening is profoundly warped. The
airports and seaports and bridges and power plants in the north were not
Hezbollah strongholds. They were destroyed as collective punishment of
the entire population of Lebanon. The current goal of the Israeli forces
is to completely empty southern Lebanon of its population--something
they have no right to do by any rational moral standard. And they are
doing it with U.S. weapons via U.S. taxpayer dollars. Do you guys have
any clue how those "Islamic extremists" are created in the first place?



>> Your attempt to cloud the issue is expected from a supporter of the
>> lowest form of human life yet to inhabit the planet.
>
> Democrats want to live in the bronze age like Hezbollah

I am not, nor ever have been a Democrat. Stop being a friggin robot and
think for yourself for a moment. There once was a time when
conservatives proudly put the interests of the United States first. But
somehow, with the help of carefully-selected political pundits,
conservatives are being hypnotized into conflating the interests of
Israel with the interests of the United States. Not only are Israel's
interests not those of the United States, but the United States is
paying a heavy price in lives and treasure for the sake of Israel--or at
least someone's totally warped view of it.


-thant

Thant Tessman

Raptor wrote:
> Thant Tessman wrote:
>> Raptor wrote:
>>
>>> Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and
>>> anyone else who wants to chime in.
>>>
>>> Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still
>>> going well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?
>>
>> You're a wimp.
>
> I am? What is it about attempting to start a dialog (as a veiled attempt
> at confrontation) makes me a wimp?

I meant that folks like pigo deserve far more contempt than you were
willing to dish out.


[...]

>> http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
>
> Except I'm not convinced that the Israelies are so willing to do our
> bidding, especially given the risks to themselves. Do you REALLY think
> the clown troupe in charge is capable of enacting such a clever conspiracy?

You've got it backwards. The U.S. is doing the bidding of Israel. As for
whether or not they're capable of enacting such a clever conspiracy, the
paper I referenced is proof they already have. And none of it was ever
secret. (BTW, it's a mistake to conflate the interests of Perle, etc.
with the interests of Israel, but it's a mistake I'm consciously making
to keep things simple for the moment.)


>
>> For the people who made the Iraq war happen, Iraq was not, and still
>> is not a mistake. Iraq was just the beginning, and everything is going
>> according to plan. Syria and Iran are next.
>
> Over my dead body! (Not quite, but I'm not going to stand by and let the
> lying, dishonorable, traitorous dumbass in the White House extend his
> screw-up.)

They already have plans in place to use nuclear "bunker busters" to blow
up Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program. The lies they used for
Iraq weren't quite flying as well this time around, so they are doing
their best to blame Hezbollah's actions on Syria and Iran in order to
provide another excuse to bomb them. Hezbollah does indeed receive aid
from Syria and Iran (and other Arab countries), but Hezbollah is a
purely nationalistic group. They don't take orders from anybody
(including the Lebanese government). People seem eager to forget that
Hezbollah was only created in response to Israel's invasion of 1982.

[...]

-thant

adm@standarddeviance.com

I (Thant Tessman) wrote:

> [...] The airports and seaports and bridges and power plants in the
> north were not Hezbollah strongholds. [...]

Turns out, neither was Qana:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html

-thant

Raptor

Thant Tessman wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>> Thant Tessman wrote:
>>> Raptor wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just a check-in with our local Bush supporters, pigo, GMAN, and
>>>> anyone else who wants to chime in.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think invading Iraq was a mistake? Do you think it's still
>>>> going well? Do you think it will work out to the better for the US?
>>>
>>> You're a wimp.
>>
>> I am? What is it about attempting to start a dialog (as a veiled
>> attempt at confrontation) makes me a wimp?
>
> I meant that folks like pigo deserve far more contempt than you were
> willing to dish out.

I like to keep my powder dry until I need it.

> [...]
>
>>> http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
>>
>> Except I'm not convinced that the Israelies are so willing to do our
>> bidding, especially given the risks to themselves. Do you REALLY think
>> the clown troupe in charge is capable of enacting such a clever
>> conspiracy?
>
> You've got it backwards. The U.S. is doing the bidding of Israel. As for
> whether or not they're capable of enacting such a clever conspiracy, the
> paper I referenced is proof they already have. And none of it was ever
> secret. (BTW, it's a mistake to conflate the interests of Perle, etc.
> with the interests of Israel, but it's a mistake I'm consciously making
> to keep things simple for the moment.)

There's a difference between enacting/engineering/whatever a conspiracy
and dreaming it up (and putting it on paper).

>>> For the people who made the Iraq war happen, Iraq was not, and still
>>> is not a mistake. Iraq was just the beginning, and everything is
>>> going according to plan. Syria and Iran are next.
>>
>> Over my dead body! (Not quite, but I'm not going to stand by and let
>> the lying, dishonorable, traitorous dumbass in the White House extend
>> his screw-up.)
>
> They already have plans in place to use nuclear "bunker busters" to blow
> up Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program. The lies they used for
> Iraq weren't quite flying as well this time around, so they are doing
> their best to blame Hezbollah's actions on Syria and Iran in order to
> provide another excuse to bomb them. Hezbollah does indeed receive aid
> from Syria and Iran (and other Arab countries), but Hezbollah is a
> purely nationalistic group. They don't take orders from anybody
> (including the Lebanese government). People seem eager to forget that
> Hezbollah was only created in response to Israel's invasion of 1982.

There will be blood in America's streets if this president orders an
attack on Syria or Iran.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Thant Tessman

Raptor wrote:
> Thant Tessman wrote:
>> Raptor wrote:
>>> Thant Tessman wrote:

[...]

>>>> http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
>>>
>>> Except I'm not convinced that the Israelies are so willing to do our
>>> bidding, especially given the risks to themselves. Do you REALLY
>>> think the clown troupe in charge is capable of enacting such a clever
>>> conspiracy?
>>
>> You've got it backwards. The U.S. is doing the bidding of Israel. As
>> for whether or not they're capable of enacting such a clever
>> conspiracy, the paper I referenced is proof they already have. And
>> none of it was ever secret. (BTW, it's a mistake to conflate the
>> interests of Perle, etc. with the interests of Israel, but it's a
>> mistake I'm consciously making to keep things simple for the moment.)
>
> There's a difference between enacting/engineering/whatever a conspiracy
> and dreaming it up (and putting it on paper).

Look at the authors of that paper. Richard Perle was the Chairman of the
Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle

Douglas Feith was Under Secretary of Defense for G.W. Bush from July
2001 until he was forced to resign. He was the one who created the
Office of Special Plans, whose mission was to cherry-pick intelligence
to justify the invasion of Iraq. He was the boss of Larry Franklin, the
guy arrested for handing over U.S. government secrets to employees of
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/rev...er/index1.html

I could go on, but how much more friggin proof do you need?

This is what blows my mind: It's clear that the WMD story was not merely
an honest mistake. There's tons of public documents proving that Iraq
was a target since at least 1996; the administration paraded evidence of
supposed WMD development the CIA knew was forged (in an audit they found
copies of the forged Niger documents in a safe); and Wolfowitz himself
admitted in an interview that the WMD line was chosen because of its
ability to sell the war. And by a rare piece of journalistic
investigation on the part of Fox News (!?!?) referenced earlier, which
Fox has subsequently tried to ban from the net, we know that the Israeli
government more than likely knew all about the 9/11 attack before it
happened (assuming people in the U.S. government didn't already know).

All of this is publicly documented. None of this is tin-foil-hat stuff.
Yet no one seems eager to think through the implications of these facts.


> There will be blood in America's streets if this president orders an
> attack on Syria or Iran.

I certainly don't want to see blood in the streets, but I hope you're
right about people's opposition to another illegitimate war.
Unfortunately, if the Iraq war has taught me anything, it's how
apparently easy it is to manipulate people.

-thant

pigo

"Raptor" <lawall@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:eap662$o3n$3@news.xmission.com...


> There will be blood in America's streets if this president orders
> an attack on Syria or Iran.

I think it is far more likely that there will be if he does not.

Raptor

Thant Tessman wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>> Thant Tessman wrote:
>>> Raptor wrote:
>>>> Thant Tessman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
>>>>
>>>> Except I'm not convinced that the Israelies are so willing to do our
>>>> bidding, especially given the risks to themselves. Do you REALLY
>>>> think the clown troupe in charge is capable of enacting such a
>>>> clever conspiracy?
>>>
>>> You've got it backwards. The U.S. is doing the bidding of Israel. As
>>> for whether or not they're capable of enacting such a clever
>>> conspiracy, the paper I referenced is proof they already have. And
>>> none of it was ever secret. (BTW, it's a mistake to conflate the
>>> interests of Perle, etc. with the interests of Israel, but it's a
>>> mistake I'm consciously making to keep things simple for the moment.)
>>
>> There's a difference between enacting/engineering/whatever a
>> conspiracy and dreaming it up (and putting it on paper).
>
> Look at the authors of that paper. Richard Perle was the Chairman of the
> Defense Policy Board from 2001 to 2003.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle
>
> Douglas Feith was Under Secretary of Defense for G.W. Bush from July
> 2001 until he was forced to resign. He was the one who created the
> Office of Special Plans, whose mission was to cherry-pick intelligence
> to justify the invasion of Iraq. He was the boss of Larry Franklin, the
> guy arrested for handing over U.S. government secrets to employees of
> the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
>
> http://dir.salon.com/story/books/rev...er/index1.html
>
> I could go on, but how much more friggin proof do you need?
>
> This is what blows my mind: It's clear that the WMD story was not merely
> an honest mistake. There's tons of public documents proving that Iraq
> was a target since at least 1996; the administration paraded evidence of
> supposed WMD development the CIA knew was forged (in an audit they found
> copies of the forged Niger documents in a safe); and Wolfowitz himself
> admitted in an interview that the WMD line was chosen because of its
> ability to sell the war. And by a rare piece of journalistic
> investigation on the part of Fox News (!?!?) referenced earlier, which
> Fox has subsequently tried to ban from the net, we know that the Israeli
> government more than likely knew all about the 9/11 attack before it
> happened (assuming people in the U.S. government didn't already know).
>
> All of this is publicly documented. None of this is tin-foil-hat stuff.
> Yet no one seems eager to think through the implications of these facts.

Yeah, yeah, I KNOW the Shrubbery manufactured an excuse(s) to attack
Iraq. I know Iraq wasn't a threat. I know that our "leaders" lied their
asses off to start their chickenhawk war.

What I have a problem believing is that the same people who brought us
Iraq and Katrina are capable of engineering the behavior of Israel,
Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah to achieve some goal.

>> There will be blood in America's streets if this president orders an
>> attack on Syria or Iran.
>
> I certainly don't want to see blood in the streets, but I hope you're
> right about people's opposition to another illegitimate war.
> Unfortunately, if the Iraq war has taught me anything, it's how
> apparently easy it is to manipulate people.

On one hand we have Democrats showing massive advantages in the upcoming
election. (Whether those advantages come through remains to be seen.)
And, the well-documented disappointment and disillusionment about the
results in Iraq.

On the other hand we have the Harris poll indicating a majority think
that we actually found the WMD we were looking for in Iraq, and that
Saddam was involved in 9/11.

All I really know is I won't sit by and let our dumbass president drag
us further down the road to ruin.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Thant Tessman

Raptor wrote:

[...]

> Ambassador Wilson says that he got Bill Kristol (or some other
> highly-placed neo-con) to finally blurt out that it was "to change
> the dynamic in the MidEast."

Argh. Like I said, this has never been secret unless the only place you
get your news is Fox and CNN. This is from the "Clean Break" paper I
came into this conversation with:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This
effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an
important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of
foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."

Which also explains what the hell this has to do with the
Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict. If the sanctions were ever lifted,
they would lose their opportunity to overthrow Saddam. (There were other
reasons to overthrow Saddam when they did, but it takes some explaining.
Suffice it to say that none of the reasons for overthrowing Saddam had
anything to do with the military threat Iraq posed to the U.S. And like
I said, Iraq was merely the opening move. And no, I didn't assert some
US-based conspiracy. I asserted an Israel-based conspiracy.)

[...]

> Iraq had enough humanitarian aid to care for its people; the blame
> for deaths in Iraq between the wars is Saddam's.

I'm repeating myself, but:

On May 12, 1996, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was
asked by Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes about the effects of U.S. sanctions
against Iraq. "We have heard that a half million children have died. I
mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the
price worth it?"

In a response that has now become notorious, Albright replied, "I think
this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it."

[...]

>> Besides, even if the vast majority of Democratic voters are against
>> this war, show me an actual Democratic politician who is
>> unambiguously antiwar--who advocates pulling the troops out of Iraq
>> now--and I'll show you a politician whose career will be
>> thoroughly sabotaged if it hasn't been already.
>
> Murtha.

True, but he originally supported the war, and really only opposes it
because it's going so badly for the U.S. military. And he's certainly
seen a lot of criticism for his stance even from the Democrats.

[...]

> If anyone's going to be impeached, it will be Cheney. Mmmm,
> delicious.

I hope you're right.

-thant

adm@standarddeviance.com

Raptor wrote:

[...]

> Hmm. Of course I wonder at the sanity of such thinking. I don't think
> Israel has the cojones to take on Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all at once.
> But they seem to be willing to risk doing so.

You *still* don't get it. The United States is going to do it for them.
How much more clearly can I say it?

[...]

> Irrelevant. Albright was not in charge of Iraq, nor was Clinton. Her
> admission is not even that the US is/was responsible for the Iraqi deaths.

Even if you're right, you're merely admitting that replacing the
Republican in the White House with a Democrat is not likely to change
anything except the excuses used for killing innocent people.

[...]

-thant

Raptor

adm@standarddeviance.com wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Hmm. Of course I wonder at the sanity of such thinking. I don't think
>> Israel has the cojones to take on Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all at once.
>> But they seem to be willing to risk doing so.
>
> You *still* don't get it. The United States is going to do it for them.
> How much more clearly can I say it?

Well, you could state the excuses (lies) that Shrub's going to use.
You could lay out the chain of events that leads up to the decision to
deploy American forces against Syria and/or Iran. (The London Times
reports that "we" stopped Iran from buying Uranium from Africa. Last
October.) You could explain why Americans will actually support the
move, or predict the effect on the mid-terms.

You don't want to go there. I mean, US spreading the war. Maybe you do
(unlikely), but I sure as hell don't. I really don't want to consider
what it is I'm willing to sacrifice in order to prevent it from happening.

>> Irrelevant. Albright was not in charge of Iraq, nor was Clinton. Her
>> admission is not even that the US is/was responsible for the Iraqi deaths.
>
> Even if you're right, you're merely admitting that replacing the
> Republican in the White House with a Democrat is not likely to change
> anything except the excuses used for killing innocent people.

Thanks to the neo-cons, we've got at least a decade of laying relatively
low ahead of us, if only because the Army desperately needs to re-load.
The challenge for Democrats is to keep us from going too soft a la Jimmy
Carter.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

adm@standarddeviance.com

Raptor wrote:

[...]

> The only problem with this, that occurred to me recently: Israel's
> already got a kick-ass air force. Lebanon is little more than a warm-up
> for 'em. What justification could there be for the US to throw in
> against Iran & Syria?

I'm not sure I understand your question. But there are a couple things
worth pointing out. First, what justification was there for the US to
throw in against Iraq? They just make stuff up. Second, I think you
overestimate Israel's power in the region. Yes, they have two hundred
or so nukes. Yes, they have a kick-ass air force. (U.S. taxpayers are
picking up a third of the tab for these.) But Israel's big weakness is
plain-old demographics. That's why they have to kick all those
Palestinians out. Can't pretend you're a democracy when you're
outnumbered. That's why they're letting the evangelicals help ship in
Jews from Russia:

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbas...t?oid=oid:1232

I actually saw the infomercial that this article refers to. Completely
mindblowing.

And remember, Israel's goal is not defense but expansion. That's why
they built that "security fence" where they did instead of on the
border.

> What does libertarian ideology have to do with a liberal or conservative
> regime conspiring to create war where one is not needed? Neither
> liberalism nor conservatism are innately biased towards war. They merely
> each have precepts that make war easier in the "right" circumstances.
> But so does libertarianism - just give me a little time to use my
> imagination if you are convinced it doesn't.

Neither liberalism nor conservatism are innately biased towards war,
but they are both biased towards the institutionalization of coercion
(albeit for different reasons). It is these institutions that the
imperialists foster and exploit for their own ends. Whether the war is
on poverty, drugs, or terrorism doesn't really matter to them. All that
matters is that *something* continues to justify the existence,
expansion, and centralization of government power.

-thant

Raptor

adm@standarddeviance.com wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The only problem with this, that occurred to me recently: Israel's
>> already got a kick-ass air force. Lebanon is little more than a warm-up
>> for 'em. What justification could there be for the US to throw in
>> against Iran & Syria?
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question. But there are a couple things
> worth pointing out. First, what justification was there for the US to
> throw in against Iraq? They just make stuff up. Second, I think you
> overestimate Israel's power in the region. Yes, they have two hundred
> or so nukes. Yes, they have a kick-ass air force. (U.S. taxpayers are
> picking up a third of the tab for these.)

My sense is that the nation as a whole does not grant the administration
credibility. War (involving the US) is likely only if Shrub is willing
to go to war without more than a token effort to sell it. His handlers
might well be.

How the nation responds I can't predict. I know I will be pissed to the
point of taking action, even if it's to walk into a police baton. I've
already let my nation be dragged to one war I knew was both wrong and a
bad idea. I am more responsible than to let it happen twice.

But Israel's big weakness is
> plain-old demographics. That's why they have to kick all those
> Palestinians out. Can't pretend you're a democracy when you're
> outnumbered. That's why they're letting the evangelicals help ship in
> Jews from Russia:
>
> http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbas...t?oid=oid:1232
>
> I actually saw the infomercial that this article refers to. Completely
> mindblowing.
>
> And remember, Israel's goal is not defense but expansion. That's why
> they built that "security fence" where they did instead of on the
> border.

I'm aware of the demographics, but haven't looked at maps of the their
fence. They can't be getting more than an extra couple hundred square
miles, can they? The area's too small to do much meaningful growing.

There are no expansionist dimensions to the current conflict that I've seen.

>> What does libertarian ideology have to do with a liberal or conservative
>> regime conspiring to create war where one is not needed? Neither
>> liberalism nor conservatism are innately biased towards war. They merely
>> each have precepts that make war easier in the "right" circumstances.
>> But so does libertarianism - just give me a little time to use my
>> imagination if you are convinced it doesn't.
>
> Neither liberalism nor conservatism are innately biased towards war,
> but they are both biased towards the institutionalization of coercion
> (albeit for different reasons). It is these institutions that the
> imperialists foster and exploit for their own ends. Whether the war is
> on poverty, drugs, or terrorism doesn't really matter to them. All that
> matters is that *something* continues to justify the existence,
> expansion, and centralization of government power.

Nations need governments. Governments just don't work without at least
some coercion. The best we can hope for is to make all of the people
safe and most of them happy, most of the time. Anything more is pure
idealism.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

adm@standarddeviance.com

Raptor wrote:

[...]

> My sense is that the nation as a whole does not grant the administration
> credibility. War (involving the US) is likely only if Shrub is willing
> to go to war without more than a token effort to sell it. His handlers
> might well be.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that the latest foiled
terrorist plot is, at least to some degree, a manufactured news story
designed to distract from the fact that Lieberman lost to an anti-war
candidate? It's not like it hasn't happened before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8a4z9N3eYc

[...]

> I'm aware of the demographics, but haven't looked at maps of the their
> fence. They can't be getting more than an extra couple hundred square
> miles, can they? The area's too small to do much meaningful growing.

The purpose of the fence is not to grab territory per se (although it
does do that). The purpose of the fence is to disrupt Palestinian
economic activity to the point where they're driven away regardless of
which side of the fence they're on.

>
> There are no expansionist dimensions to the current conflict that I've seen.

Um, I don't know when you've checked the newspapers last, but Israel
has invaded southern Lebanon.


> Nations need governments. Governments just don't work without at least
> some coercion. The best we can hope for is to make all of the people
> safe and most of them happy, most of the time. Anything more is pure
> idealism.

Governments always and everywhere do more harm than good. Recognizing
this fact is not a matter of idealism. To the contrary, it is idealism
that blinds people to this fact.

-thant

Raptor

adm@standarddeviance.com wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> My sense is that the nation as a whole does not grant the administration
>> credibility. War (involving the US) is likely only if Shrub is willing
>> to go to war without more than a token effort to sell it. His handlers
>> might well be.
>
> Are you willing to consider the possibility that the latest foiled
> terrorist plot is, at least to some degree, a manufactured news story
> designed to distract from the fact that Lieberman lost to an anti-war
> candidate? It's not like it hasn't happened before:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8a4z9N3eYc

It immediately occurred to me. But this does indeed seem to be much more
real than the Miami street people guarding the warehouse.

> [...]
>
>> I'm aware of the demographics, but haven't looked at maps of the their
>> fence. They can't be getting more than an extra couple hundred square
>> miles, can they? The area's too small to do much meaningful growing.
>
> The purpose of the fence is not to grab territory per se (although it
> does do that). The purpose of the fence is to disrupt Palestinian
> economic activity to the point where they're driven away regardless of
> which side of the fence they're on.

I can see that, given that a lot of Palestinians worked in Israel once.

>> There are no expansionist dimensions to the current conflict that I've seen.
>
> Um, I don't know when you've checked the newspapers last, but Israel
> has invaded southern Lebanon.

Um, because Hezbollah lobs rockets into Israel from s. Lebanon. If some
third party lobbed rockets over the Canadian border, and Canada was
unable or unwilling to stop them, the US would invade Canada. Annexing
that part of Lebanon will not solve the rocket problem; if it becomes
too Israeli and not enough Lebanese, Hezbollah will just start lobbing
rockets from across the new border.

>> Nations need governments. Governments just don't work without at least
>> some coercion. The best we can hope for is to make all of the people
>> safe and most of them happy, most of the time. Anything more is pure
>> idealism.
>
> Governments always and everywhere do more harm than good. Recognizing
> this fact is not a matter of idealism. To the contrary, it is idealism
> that blinds people to this fact.

I doubt that you're in favor of anarchy.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

pigo

<adm@standarddeviance.com> wrote in message
news:1155402859.408714.317070@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Raptor wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The only problem with this, that occurred to me recently: Israel's
>> already got a kick-ass air force. Lebanon is little more than a
>> warm-up
>> for 'em. What justification could there be for the US to throw in
>> against Iran & Syria?
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question. But there are a couple
> things
> worth pointing out. First, what justification was there for the US
> to
> throw in against Iraq?

What? Have you been living in a cave? Sadaam's unconditional
surrender in GWl that he never lived up to ring a bell? What about
all the U.N. resolutions (more than 20?) that Sadaam blew off? Or the
one authorizing the use of force to achieve compliance?

adm@standarddeviance.com

I wrote:

> [...] Saddam may
> have been a monster, [...]

Forgot to mention: Originally Saddam was *our* monster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

-thant

Raptor

pigo wrote:
> <adm@standarddeviance.com> wrote in message
> news:1155402859.408714.317070@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>> I'm not sure I understand your question. But there are a couple
>> things
>> worth pointing out. First, what justification was there for the US
>> to
>> throw in against Iraq?
>
> What? Have you been living in a cave? Sadaam's unconditional
> surrender in GWl that he never lived up to ring a bell? What about
> all the U.N. resolutions (more than 20?) that Sadaam blew off? Or the
> one authorizing the use of force to achieve compliance?

We went to war - and ultimately lost - over pieces of paper. Cool.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,