Mary’s posts resonate with a lot of the pre-WWII rhetoric in support of PM Neville Chamberlain.
You know, the one who loved and trusted Germans so much that, he strangled military spending to the point where Hitler had a 3:1 air advantage vs GBR by the time Poland was sacked. Churchill was able to win the PM from the fascist sympathisers after the failed Norway campaign. Much could have been done to limit the suffering of Czechs, and German speaking Jews during Neville’s term of office.
This would have been Churchill’s depiction of Neville:
“oh my, bombers and battleships cost too much!!! I want to spend those billions for my domesic programs! Hitler already shook hands with me about having only continental ambitions, so we’re all cool about that. Why build bombers in the first place? They are only to used in war and I just got our nation out of another one.”
You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?
I wish you guys would understand that opposing the Iraq invasion does not = pacifism. I was supportive of the first Persian Gulf war. It was a very effective UN operation that cost us little, garnered us prestige, and stopped a greedy grab for land. Somehow, I doubt Chamberlain would have supported PG1. But go on, keep telling yourself that the majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists.
majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists!
Iraq was able to attack her neighbors and had the resources for limited offensive operations. She was stronger than all the nations arond her sake Saudi Arabia which has our boys defending since the last threat. The second invasion was not about any threats of invasion. It was about the continued ignorance of UN sanctions that were violated way too many times to even count. As a result we compile that Iraq was flexing her wings a bit too much and not following what she agreed and signedunder the UN security agreement for the region. This outward demonstration of defiance could not be accepted and History has proven with many examples that the “little conquests” only lead to more daring and COSTLY activities latter with our money and lives, because after all as an" Imperialist Bush state it is our duty under God to enforce the law, because we are the law."
“One nation ,One people, One president!”
George Bush at the his acceptance speech 2004.
(sources moveon.org and ideasthatcamefromberkely.org)
Your sig is very appropriate, IL.
Why can’t they elect a socialist government? Because we said so. That simple. Same is true with a islamic fundamentalist state.
The Nazis were socialist, and see where that got us?
After WW2 neither Germany nor Japan was ALLOWED to follow thier old political parties. In Germany it is STILL illegal to be a Nazi. We will not allow Iraq to become another Iran. Take all the democracy you want, but you are not ALLOWED by the United States of Amierca to elect people who are fundamentalist Islamic facist.
Socialism to the extreme right may work on some levels (economicaly), at the cost of human rights. Socialism to the extreme left does not work on ANY level.
My definition of socialism…
The equal and fair redistribution of misery.
How about a theocracy?
“BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Framers of Iraq’s constitution will designate Islam as the main source of legislation - a departure from the model set down by U.S. authorities during the occupation - according to a draft published Tuesday.”
http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/2579335p-11017020c.html
@Imperious:
majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists!
“Who lives by the sword, will die by the sword”
Iraq was able to attack her neighbors and had the resources for limited offensive operations. She was stronger than all the nations arond her sake Saudi Arabia which has our boys defending since the last threat.
It was able to attack its neighbors …up to the last threat. So, you are changing your times you are relating to.
“Since the last threat” Iraq had no resources for offensive action and surely was not stronger than TURKEY or Iran or probably even Syria.
Even before the last trheat it was not stronger than Turkey (and thus the NATO).
The second invasion was not about any threats of invasion.
What else? I thought Iraq was somehow threatening the US?
It was about the continued ignorance of UN sanctions that were violated way too many times to even count.
This stopped once your army was assembled and ready to invade.
“One nation ,One people, One president!”
George Bush at the his acceptance speech 2004.
“One people, one nation, one leader”
translated Nazi slogan, 1933-1945
Why can’t they elect a socialist government? Because we said so. That simple. Same is true with a islamic fundamentalist state.
So much for the freedom and democracy you claim to bring.
The Nazis were socialist, and see where that got us?
The Nazis stopped being socialist in 1934 after the Night of the Long Knifes.
Take all the democracy you want, but you are not ALLOWED by the United States of Amierca to elect people who are fundamentalist Islamic facist.
What if they chose a fundamentalist christian fascist gov’t ?
My definition of socialism…
Want to hear my definition of neo-con or born-again christian?
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.
True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.
“Who lives by the sword, will die by the sword”
“He who praises peace to bloodthirsty warmongers gets torture,rape, followed by death in public.”
( the silent millions tortured and murdered by Sadamm for 30 years).
“He who praises peace to bloodthirsty warmongers gets torture,rape, followed by death in public.”
(the millions of people under the supervision and who are dying under the false pretenses of George W. Bush) :wink:
@221B:
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.
True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.
True, but it cuts both ways: the experience in Iraq is against an actual army, hell-bent on destroying them. Those that survive the “training” in Iraq are probably much more dangerous than those that came out of Afghanastan. Isn’t that general rule with soldiers? You can train them all you want, but nothing prepares you for combat like the real thing.
True, but it cuts both ways
I agree.
Any way you slice it, I think the West (and to a lesser extent India, Russia, Indonesia/Bali, Phillipines, and much of the rest of the world) will be forced to deal with Islamic fanatics willing and eager to kill innocent civilians for a long time to come. This terrorism problem with AQ and similar organizations is going to take a long, long time to resolve regardless of how it is addressed by the West. The trick will be to find the best manner to do so. I’m not convinced GWB’s approach is the best, but neither (IMO) was the minimalist approach taken by Clinton. I really have no idea what the best approach might be.
This is a really stupid question. Of course well suceed, we already are winning, though the media misconstrues it into a disaster. If Marines are being killed in Iraq, then yes, its definantly worth it, Marines die for a reason.
@marine36:
This is a really stupid question. Of course well suceed, we already are winning, though the media misconstrues it into a disaster. If Marines are being killed in Iraq, then yes, its definantly worth it, Marines die for a reason.
Is that the rule then? Whenever a marine dies its “worth it”?
Mary’s posts resonate with a lot of the pre-WWII rhetoric in support of PM Neville Chamberlain.
You know, the one who loved and trusted Germans so much that, he strangled military spending to the point where Hitler had a 3:1 air advantage vs GBR by the time Poland was sacked. Churchill was able to win the PM from the fascist sympathisers after the failed Norway campaign. Much could have been done to limit the suffering of Czechs, and German speaking Jews during Neville’s term of office.
This would have been Churchill’s depiction of Neville:
“oh my, bombers and battleships cost too much!!! I want to spend those billions for my domesic programs! Hitler already shook hands with me about having only continental ambitions, so we’re all cool about that. Why build bombers in the first place? They are only to used in war and I just got our nation out of another one.”You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?
I wish you guys would understand that opposing the Iraq invasion does not = pacifism. I was supportive of the first Persian Gulf war. It was a very effective UN operation that cost us little, garnered us prestige, and stopped a greedy grab for land. Somehow, I doubt Chamberlain would have supported PG1. But go on, keep telling yourself that the majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists.
What I am saying is that SH would have eventually given germ warfare technology to nearly untraceable terrorist agents for operations against the US. Particularly in Texas, where GHW & Barbera Bush live. That would be just a short SW Air flight to your state.
SH would have also kept funding the suicide bombers against Israel. Taking him out removes an obstacle to Mid-east peace.
I am sure you have great domestic spending plans, but it can all be ruined by another terrorist attack. I would rather have Iraq as their base than some mosque by the local flight school. I do not want another 911 on our soil. Given the Spanish elections after 311, I doubt if AQ will care about their losses in Iraq.
The raids along the Syrian border are inflicting significant losses on the Baathists. The troops are just a few raids away from getting the rest of the replacement leadership. Iraqis are now looking for stable leadership. Keeping the insurgents on the run prevents them from establishing legitamate stability. It does not take away their ability to disrupt the stability that we recently set up there. They did get a decent turn out on the latest election. Things are more stable. Soon, they will be able to fight for it themselves. As in A&A, if you just sit on an advantage, the opponent will eventually build a counter. Minor advantages are not always permanent. You must exploit them and widen your edge in order to gain victory.
@221B:
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.
True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.
True, but it cuts both ways: the experience in Iraq is against an actual army, hell-bent on destroying them. Those that survive the “training” in Iraq are probably much more dangerous than those that came out of Afghanastan. Isn’t that general rule with soldiers? You can train them all you want, but nothing prepares you for combat like the real thing.
It then becomes a question of who will welcome these terrorists. If all exits in Iraq get bottled up, then they are trapped there and will eventually get hunted down.
@F_alk:
@Imperious:
majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists!
“Who lives by the sword, will die by the sword”
Think of it as surgery to remove a malignant cancerous tumor before trouble spreads.
Scalpel blades are often sharper than swords.
You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?
Let’s not forget that nerve gas has been around a while. Old technology that SH would easily have given to someone bent on killing Iraelis and Americans in mass slaughter.
You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?
Let’s not forget that nerve gas has been around a while. Old technology that SH would easily have given to someone bent on killing Iraelis and Americans in mass slaughter.
Where to begin with all this?
Three things to consider:
1. According to the 2002 NIE report, SH did not want to get involved in attacks against us out of fear of reprisal.
2. SH had ten years from PG1 to the Iraq invasion to try a terrorist attack against us, fund one, or provide logistic support for an attack. He never did. Too busy building presidential palaces, probably. But suddenly, when Bush comes to power, Iraq becomes an imminent threat, with their nuclear program, WMD’s, and ties to Al Queda
3. Iraq had no nuclear program, WMD’s, or ties to Al Queda. We’ve found one artillery shell with VX in it. If that’s the standard for preemptive invasion, then every other nation on Earth was more of a threat to us than Iraq was.
@221B:
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.
True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.
True, but it cuts both ways: the experience in Iraq is against an actual army, hell-bent on destroying them. Those that survive the “training” in Iraq are probably much more dangerous than those that came out of Afghanastan. Isn’t that general rule with soldiers? You can train them all you want, but nothing prepares you for combat like the real thing.
It then becomes a question of who will welcome these terrorists. If all exits in Iraq get bottled up, then they are trapped there and will eventually get hunted down.
Iraq has a huge, porous border which we are incapable of defending. But let me get this straight: we can’t stop illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexican border, but we’re going to make Iraq air-tight?
@F_alk:
@Imperious:
majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists!
“Who lives by the sword, will die by the sword”
Iraq was able to attack her neighbors and had the resources for limited offensive operations. She was stronger than all the nations arond her sake Saudi Arabia which has our boys defending since the last threat.
It was able to attack its neighbors …up to the last threat. So, you are changing your times you are relating to.
“Since the last threat” Iraq had no resources for offensive action and surely was not stronger than TURKEY or Iran or probably even Syria.
Even before the last trheat it was not stronger than Turkey (and thus the NATO).The second invasion was not about any threats of invasion.
What else? I thought Iraq was somehow threatening the US?
It was about the continued ignorance of UN sanctions that were violated way too many times to even count.
This stopped once your army was assembled and ready to invade.
“One nation ,One people, One president!”
George Bush at the his acceptance speech 2004.“One people, one nation, one leader”
translated Nazi slogan, 1933-1945Why can’t they elect a socialist government? Because we said so. That simple. Same is true with a islamic fundamentalist state.
So much for the freedom and democracy you claim to bring.
The Nazis were socialist, and see where that got us?
The Nazis stopped being socialist in 1934 after the Night of the Long Knifes.
Take all the democracy you want, but you are not ALLOWED by the United States of Amierca to elect people who are fundamentalist Islamic facist.
What if they chose a fundamentalist christian fascist gov’t ?
My definition of socialism…
Want to hear my definition of neo-con or born-again christian?
If they elected satan himself I could care less as long as it was in the best intrests of the US. I for one, could care less about the Iraqi people. I am not a christian super hero who thinks we should try to save anyone other than ourselves and a few REAL allies. I could care less about “bringing democracy” to Iraq. That has never meant anything to me. And you did sidestep the question of the horrible regime set up in post war japan/germany that were supposed to be democracys but to THIS DAY can not practice thier pre-war politics. Why? BECAUSE WE SAID SO!
And no, the nazis were socialist after 1934. The work incentive plans among many other things show that. The government had a plan to purchase cars and vacations for its citizens. Hardly a “hands off” government. Not to mention the direct ties the government had to industry. It was as socialist as it gets. It was just to the right, and not to the left. I wish it had been to the left, because than the whole movement would have fallen on its face and bankrupted (even worse than it already was) the German economy. Not a nice thing to wish on Germans, but it beats the hell out of a world war.
And why would you say the night of the long knives ended the socialist part of national socialism? The SA were the heart of the socialist part of the equation?
