Good point. I was thinking along the same lines earlier.
When are Republicans&warmongers going to take responsibility for the Iraq disaster?
- Thread starter Kicking
- Start date
Good point. I was thinking along the same lines earlier.
yes, I agree. I have been contemplating this for that past few years. (actually from day one). A very convincing case could be easily made, perhaps when I'm of sound body-and-mind, I'll make it.
Here's the lastest clue. Rumsfeld resigned the day AFTER the elections. The only conclusion I could make is the Administration took a dive.
I'll repeat that, the Administration took a dive...
and could anyone argue that it wasn't in the best interst of the country, indeed, the world?
^
Pattsb lecturing the world. ROTFLMAO!!
<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/651/getabrainmoransrn7.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>
hey Pattsy, as evidenced by the overwhelming mandate given to the Democrats, I don't think the american people care what you or people like you think.
Pattsb lecturing the world. ROTFLMAO!!
<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/651/getabrainmoransrn7.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>
hey Pattsy, as evidenced by the overwhelming mandate given to the Democrats, I don't think the american people care what you or people like you think.
Exactly correct.
Have any of you heard of the Czech villages of Lidice and Ležáky? During the WWII occupation, Czech partisans staged the only successful assassination of a Nazi leader during WWII. It was an extremely bold and daring operation, and the people who carried it out knew that they were almost certain to die whether they succeeded or not.
Hitler's response was very simple. He ordered the immediate destruction of Lidice and Ležáky, and all the inhabitants of those two villages were murdered. The partisans who had planned the attacks later admitted they would never have done it had they known the consequences. No other Nazi leaders were assassinated afterwards. Even the allied powers stopped plans to assassinate leading Nazis, for fear that similar reprisals would occur.
The simple fact is that deterrence works. The "resistance" in Iraq know American will not go too far in its reprisals, so they continue. If American was governed by a Hitler, he would simply say that the next major attack would result in him exterminating 10,000 civilians in Baghdad, and the number would double with each sign of resistance. Eventually, either the resistance would stop, or Iraq's entire population would be wiped out. That is the power of being an evil cunt. American is not capable of stomaching such action, therefore it is not capable of achieving that power.
Remember Chechnya? What was the Russian policy there? Kill them all, basically. They didn't give a fuck about human rights or foreign reputation, they just arrested, tortured, and slaughtered anyone remotely related to the resistance. And what are the results? What is the state of the Chechnya resistance now? It is a shambles. Some of the toughest, bravest, most organised guerilla forces in the world have been mostly subdued within 5 or 6 years by an incompetent, demoralised, poorly equipped military force. Contrast with American - the best equipped, best funded army, a highly motivated fighting force. Maybe 2 or 3 countries could do better man for man, but overall the US is way ahead of everyone. Yet in Iraq they are pitifully ineffectual.
It really is that simple. There is a reason why the world was conquered by the Caesars, the Genghis Khans, and the Alexanders of this world, not by the Jimmy Carters or Nelson Mandelas. Force works. Inflicting pain works. He who can stomach the most pain, while doling out more than his opponent, will win.
Either America fights dirtier and more evil than their opponents, or it gets the hell out. If they want to win, they could do in in 48 hours. Just bomb Tehran, assassinate every insurgent leader, arrest *everyone* remotely related to the insurgence, hang members of the police suspected of being double agents etc. But they will never do that, they are beholden to the political repercussions. Therefore, they should never have got it. It's like taking part in a street fight. If your opponent is willing to gouge, bite, and kick you in the nuts, and you are trying to fight by the Queensbury rules, then you are going to lose. Either you fight dirty too, or you back out. Do not get involved in a game that you are not prepared to play.
American got out of its depth, because its political leaders and voters are naive, ignorant, stupid idiots. They should have learned from Vietnam, but i guess the saying about history repeating itself is true.
Well, the irony is that they aren't savages at all, the vast majority. No more so than Germans were savages in 1925. But the thing about political power is that it only takes a tiny handful of savages to make a whole country that way. Germany from 1945-2006 has been one of the most placid, peaceful countries in world history. From 1938-1945 it was arguably the deadliest and most aggressive threat the world has ever seen. Hitler came *that close* to conquering Russia and the UK, and if he had done then the US in due time would have fallen like a house of cards.
Iraq is a mess because of a small number of modern day Hitler types in Iran, Syria, Iraq itself, and one or two other places. That's all. I mean do you think 1 million people died in Rwanda because they are inherently savage? No, it was because *a* savage and a few followers took control of the power of arms in that African country for a short while. Same with Iraq. Quite a few powerful and evil people want American out of the middle east at all costs. They want a humiliating foreign policy defeat that will keep the yanks out for decades, so they can get carte blanche to do what they like in the region. Thanks to Bush, Wolfowitz, and other ignorant fools with no knowledge of power politics or international affairs, they are highly likely to get exactly what they want.
After this debacle, what American president for the next 50 years will ever order military intervention in the region? If in 10 years a new Saddam invades Kuwait, will we go in and boot him out? Or will we say "Oh, look at the mess that happned last time - let's stay clear?" Thanks to Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, and half the American public, it will likely be the latter. Thanks to their utter stupidity, the Middle East will be far LESS safe and more destabilising than at any time since the Crusades.
Trying to blame the current instability on some kind of imagined "inherent savagery" of foreigners is the most absurd, naive, ignorant, and flat out moronic thing I have heard all year.
Beyond the misuse of the word "irony" in your first sentence, you then go on to contradict yourself saying only a tiny handful of savages can make a whole country that way. Using your logic, a small element of savages has turned all of Iraq into a bunch of savages, which was my point to begin with. Furthermore, if my post was the most absurd, naive, ignorant and flat out moronic thing you've heard all year I suggest you get out more, or at least pay attention to the news.
Sure sounds like it. We should have Cutten call the Prez up and tell him
to sick the Death Squads on all innocent civilians in Iraq and kill them all.
That way we can win the Middle East! Oil for everybody! Yipee!
We will be respected by all just like Hitler is respected...
Or: We can leave and let them decide if they want to keep killing
each other...
can't help to write this. a true problem of the bush administration
is that they do not get in their minds that people dislike the american
way of life. and that the americans in the first place must define
their own true mission. you cannot just democrasise a country.
this is a process. a process of understanding what is actually
going on. IMHO the way the 2000 election took place shows the
problem of republican leaders of that time with democracy as such.
their personal agenda overrules their willingness to execute
democracy. instead of saying: "democracy is the highest value
we have, so let us stand back, suffer another month of uncertainty
altogether and count until we know who had won", they overruled
simply because they had the power to do so.
and in iraq they get in with a mixed agenda (olio), ignore the
human, ethic, cultural landscape in the first place and do not
understand at all what goes wrong.
is that they do not get in their minds that people dislike the american
way of life. and that the americans in the first place must define
their own true mission. you cannot just democrasise a country.
this is a process. a process of understanding what is actually
going on. IMHO the way the 2000 election took place shows the
problem of republican leaders of that time with democracy as such.
their personal agenda overrules their willingness to execute
democracy. instead of saying: "democracy is the highest value
we have, so let us stand back, suffer another month of uncertainty
altogether and count until we know who had won", they overruled
simply because they had the power to do so.
and in iraq they get in with a mixed agenda (olio), ignore the
human, ethic, cultural landscape in the first place and do not
understand at all what goes wrong.