Re: Are Republicans Guilty Of Genocide?

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:04:34 -0500, Li RM wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:32:26 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
<Curly.is.not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:00:24 -0500, Li RM wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:54:19 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
<Curly.is.not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:03:38 -0500, Li RM wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:45:36 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
<Curly.is.not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:30:54 -0500, Li RM wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:37:12 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
<too_many_tools@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If so I would consider Hell will be rather crowded...let's hope
they have enough airport bathroom stalls to handle the demand..

Your opinion?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Fact: "In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early
Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if
Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as
required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution,
296-133."

That shows that there were 373 elected representatives who violated
their oath of office and Constitutional responsibilities besides
Bush. It's not an indication of legality, integrity or rightousness.

Not to mention that the vote was based upon lies.

Hose***.

Saddam stopped allowing inspectors into his country as part of the
cease fire agreement to end the first Gulf War.

And Bush halted inspections:

"In his report to the UN Security Council on February 14, 2003, Blix
claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991,
the phase of disarmament -- under resolution 687 -- could have been
short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided." [5]

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the
claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of
criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on
BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British
governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the
regime of Saddam Hussein." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix


He also repeatedly fired on our soldiers who overflew his country to
enforce the no fly zone.

So what? The excuse was a lie, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" used to
stampede Clowngress into giving away their Constitutional
responsiblity.

So what that they fired upon our soldiers and tried to shoot down our
jets for not abiding by their cease fire agreement?

That's reason enough go to war right there.

I would have simply leveled their country with a couple of dozen nukes
rather than invade it, but people say I'm harsh.

It's a post 9/11 world, Curly.

Stomping the guts out of Islam in a cruel and unusual way is what we
should have done at the earliest opportunity.

"Islam" didn't fire on our soldiers, Saddam did. Saddam Hussein was
disposed of 6 years ago, that reason died with his rule.

Why are our troops still there?

For various reasons that I both agree and disagree with:

1. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to give them the
opportunity to install a functioning government. Note that this is not
what I would have done, but I simply recognize that the situation exists
and this is what we have to do to deal with it.

Their quota of good will is long over.

Important note: Just because I feel we have that responsibility doesn't
mean we stand up for the Iraqi's forever because they can't get their
*** together.

We give them a viable time table. Let's say mid 2009. We let them know
that during this period they will have that time to bring their army up to
speed - their government up to speed or - deal with the consequences of
not having us there to - for example - make sure Iran doesn't take
advantage of the situation and invade their country after we leave.

Two weeks and we're out. Any attack on an American in that time period
brings massive retaliation and eradication of the gene line of any proven
participant.

I think we have to do this to prevent Iraq from becoming the next
Afghanistan where groups like al queda could gain a stronghold should it
be the Sunni groups who try and take advantage of the situation instead.

***'m. Let the Kurds, Turks, Armenians, Georgans, Persians, Sunni's,
Shia, Zoroastrians, marsh arabs, jews all duke it out. Seriously, let
them kill each other until some equilibium is reached then deal with the
winner.

2. If we simply vacate the premises immediately - as Hillary would have
us do and other democrats have called for - we assure ourselves that
either Iran will invade to support the Shiite's or Sunni groups like AQ
or the Taliban will take control. Either way, it's a bad situation for
us in the long haul.

Taliban won't win, nobody likes them. I don't care who wins, ***'m.

We also achieve what the US has been known for - abandoning the people
we supposedly came in to protect.

Stop doing that! Stop dragging my country into foreign interventions that
always backfire god-damnit! It's not in the Constitution, Bill of Rights
and the concept of America is to *** out of others business, leave them
alone and demand the same in return.

If they *** with us destroy them. Not "occupy" or engage in "Nation
building" but send them back to the stone age leaving 5% of their
population to warn future generations.

When we left Vietnam, hundreds of thousands if not a million or more
South Vietnamese were put to death by the North Vietnamese for helping
us.

Learn from that mistake.

The anti war fuckheads don't like to count that as blood on their hands,
but blood on their hands it is. These simplistic pieces of dog***
scream ideals, morals and values all day long, but honoring ones allies
by making sure they simply fucking *live* after the war is supposedly
over I guess isn't a value that means jack *** to them. To these
spineless inverts, "getting out" is all that matters and *** whoever we
leave behind.

You are missing an important factor, we shouldn't have been in Vietnam in
the first place. It was the second illegal war of that generation and
went much worse than Korea. Stay the *** out of other peoples lives.

You have no right to commit America into projecting our vast power into a
dominion over their lives and culture. They want to give up women for
12-year-old boys then have at it. Some will escape and become wonderful
additions to our culture. Women too. Welcome their women, when the
crazymotherfuckers run out of women to reproduce by their evil meme dies.

Mark my words - if we leave Iraq in the same manner, it will either be
the Shiites who take it up the ass if they don't get Iran's help or the
Sunni's who get fucked if they do. The Kurds in the north I think are
fucked either way as they have always been the ones to get fucked. Going
back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire, they probably should have
gotten their own country, but that's another tangent entirely.

Of course, learn from history and don't get your tit caught in that
wringer. Out now!

3. There is a bigger picture going on here then simply what to do about
and with Iraq. That bigger picture involves two things:

a. Oil
b. Making sure the bad guys who attacked us on 9/11 (and other Islamic
bad guys who would love to do the same) have their heads kept in the
dirt via our boots.

a. Regarding oil - it's a vital commodity and like it or not we need it
and need to make sure we get it. Since I'm not a communist and don't
think oil companies should be the "People's" oil company, someone has to
sell it. I do not believe for a second that we went to war solely for
oil as many simplistic democrats would like to think happened in the
delusional world they live in. But you can bet your ass that the US
government - be it run by the Dems or the Repubs - from every president
since the early 1900's - has had a keen interest in making sure we are
able to get oil. That means they have *all* been in cahoots with the
Saudi's and other OPEC nations. Why that seems so conspiratorial to so
many people is beyond me. What the *** are we supposed to do - sit
around with our thumbs up our asses and hope OPEC doesn't pull another
stunt like they did back in the 70's - or worse - not do *** and then
one day wake up to AQ having taken out the Saudi pipelines with a small
nuke thus crippling the worlds economy?

In the real world we have to protect our interest in oil. And we have
to protect it from the fanatical fucking lunatics who currently reside
on top of it.

Why?

This is the exact reason society has gone to hell in a handbasket and
given the moslems our collective testicles on a marble platter.

Stop importing oil and let the industry collapse.

Me? Post 9/11 would have been the perfect time to vaporize Islam and
put to work what few remaining Muslims were left to pump the oil from
underneath what used to be their homes for the rest of us. But again
people say I'm a tad harsh. Maybe I am, but if you attack the US, then
you should get your ass kicked into the ground so hard you don't get
back up. Period - end of story. Not only does it solve the immediate
problem, but it sends a message to next group of fuckheads who are
thinking about doing the same. And I know you will respond with "it
wasn't Islam who attacked us" and I vehemently disagree. They *want* us
to subscribe to the belief that terrorism can't be fought because
terrorists have no nation state.

I say *** that.

I say the best way to stop terrorism is to overwhelming incinerate that
which they fight for - in this case Islam.

Too big a bite. Put one on Osama's head and anyone shielding him. The
crazymothefuckers will stop bothering us. But only if we stop meddling in
their backyards. Let them eat sand.

My guess is that they would not like that policy a whole lot because
it's not all that fair.

Oh fucking well. But knowing that is what's going to happen "Ahmed" -
then carefully make your choices before attacking us because that is
what the *** you are going to get. Likewise to every Muslims who
"innocently" sends all that Zakat to the mosques who send it to the bad
guys to finance the war they don't want to be overtly connected to.

b. It's a new post 9/11 world. We probably have - I'd say - maybe 5 to
20 years to kick the *** out Islamic fanatics before they obtain the
resources to destroy the US. That's if they haven't obtained them yet.
Depending on who you read and who you believe it's probable they already
have enough nukes to take out a half dozen US cities (read Paul L.
Williams and Yuseff Bodansky) if not more.

We aren't going to kick the *** out of them sitting over here with our
thumbs up our asses.

Meaning we either wait to take it up the ass or we realize we are at war
with at least factions if not entire nations in the middle east.

As I've said before, I think Pakistan is going to *** us before this is
all over.

As soon as the opportunity arises, yes.

I think the Saudi's are going to *** us.

They already have, are, and will continue to do as long as you subscribe
to the status quo. Their empire disintegrates as soon as we halt buying
the spice. The House of Saud will be overrun by their own carnivorous
poor and entirely too occupied trying to sell their oil for $20/barrel to
a saturated world market.

Afghanistan will seem to be an ordered Nederlands compared to Saudi Arabia
with those 5,000 princes flee in their Leer Jets.

I think Iran would *** us if they had a chance in hell.

Actually no, Iran could be our best trading partner if we'd each cease
trying to "retaliate" against the other.

Saddam can't *** us anymore but I think he would have if he could have.

Saddam was Bush41's Shirley but he got out of control. Bush43 had to rape
him a few times to get cooperation.

We need to do more not less.

Yes, mind our own business more.

We need to give Musharraf an ultimatum - you've got 2 months to find bin
Laden or we turn Waziristan into the worlds largest BBQ.

Sounds fine to me. Same day our last troop and carrier leave Arab land,
in two weeks.

We need to establish a policy of MAD with Islam - mutually assured
destruction. We let them know in no uncertain terms that if any Islamic
groups use WMD's or detonates a nuke on American soil, Islam will be a
smoldering shithole 60 minutes later along with the 1 billion or so
Muslims that make up its countries.

Where do I sign?

We need to toss the ball into Islam's court and make *them* clean up the
fucking mess they have created by supporting these sacks of ***
financially, spiritually and by giving them safe harbor.

They don't like that?

Too fucking bad.

If they agree and want our help?

Great. We'll help you find the bad guys and make sure they and their
families get two in the back of the head in the middle of the night.

If the Muslim on the street doesn't want us coming into his country to
do the above?

Not a problem. Expect 500 lb jdams and massive collateral damage with
lots of dead Muslim babies instead of surgical black ops teams. Just
don't come crying to us afterwards about how Americans kill innocent
Muslims and children.

We need to realize that we are in this war for our asses and how
different a war it is. I think most people have forgotten 9/11 and the
implications of same. Well, until the next time anyway. Only next time
it might not be just a few thousand dead.

Remember George Tenets interview on 60 minutes a few months back? I do.
He revealed that AQ was planning a gas attack on the NY subway but
called it off.

They called it off because they have something bigger coming.

Those are his words, not mine.

By the way, he was Clinton's guy, not Bush's. He's not your basic
"neocon" looking to scare the *** out of Americans to get more oil by
creating a war against terror.

Well, that's a summary of why I think we are there, why we should be
there and why I think we will be there for a while.

It's probably best expressed as "unintended consequences".

Would we be there if not for 9/11?

I don't think so.

I think said Victor Davis Hanson said it best on November 6, 2001:

"... bin Laden and his supporters have let slip the dogs of war; history
teaches us that they more often turn on and devour their masters. We
must be patient and let the dogs reach their fury."

I don't think "the dogs" are quite there yet.

Soon though.

When Osama and company kill the 4 million Americans they have promised
to kill to achieve "parity" with the US that ought to do it.

Demanding that the other party disengage while still holding operations in
the field won't work. The only way you can massively retaliate is when/if
your position includes the cessation of war-like behavior on our part.

-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osama didn't win, Bush lost. Strike that, Osama didn't win, _we_ lost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Loading