Al qaeda's goal: Get america to go to war w/ "another country"

[TheBZ]

At what point did the topic of this thread start to be about you?

I was referring to the administration.

However, it is good that you have clarified your position. I wasn't sure where you stood on all of this.



BZ

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='284846' date='Jun 21 2006, 08:10 AM']At what point did the topic of this thread start to be about you?

I was referring to the administration.

However, it is good that you have clarified your position. I wasn't sure where you stood on all of this.



BZ[/quote]


You said "If the Jackboots fit the least [b]YOU[/b] could do is wear them with pride."

Excuse me if it appeared that YOU were referring to ME.

And glad I could clarify things for you... [img]http://www.deedz.net/img/smiley/sarcastic.gif[/img]

[|Bunghole|]

[b][i]I'll stand with my Dad and the people like him on this issue, as I always have....[/i][/b]

[u] Dad: A friend of mine sent this to me and I thought that you might find it interesting. A Naval Academy classmate of mine who is a retired Air Force general officer recently attended a conference at Fort Carson which was a briefing on the Iraq War. This is the report he sent out about the conference. I thought you would be interested in reading his report. Knowing the author of the report, I know it is factual.

Regards[/u]


_____

Earlier this week I attended a retired general and flag officer conference at Fort Carson, hosted by MGen Bob Mixon, the 7th Infantry Division Commander which calls the Fort its home. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ft. Carson, it is a huge installation located to the south of Colorado Springs; it's in the process of becoming one of the larger Army installations in the country (26,000 soldiers); and it is the test location for the new "modular brigade" concept that will reflect the Army of tomorrow by 2008. It is also the home post of the largest number of troopers who have served multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq and, regrettably, the largest number of troopers who have died in combat there over the past three years. There are Ft. Carson units going to and returning from the combat area virtually on a monthly basis.



The conference was primarily organized to explain the modular brigade concept, and it featured a panel of officers who had either very recently returned from commands in the combat zone or were about to deploy there in the next two months. Three of the recent returnees were H.R. McMaster, Rick S., and Captain Walter Szpak.



McMaster is the commander of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment, the unit that, through very innovative and population-friendly tactics, rid the city of Tal Afar of insurgents. [b]The mayor of Tal Afar came back to Carson two weeks ago to thank the troopers and their families personally for "freeing his people". (You say you didn't hear about that in the mainstream media?) [/b] McMaster is considered the foremost U.S. expert on modern insurgent warfare, has written a book on the subject which is widely circulated at the war colleges and staff colleges, and he was asked to testify before Congress when he returned from the 3rd ACR combat deployment. He is obviously one of the great combat leaders that has emerged from the war and is highly respected (some would say revered) by his troopers and his superiors alike.



Rick S. is assigned to the 10th Special Forces Brigade and he headed up all of the 31 Special Forces A-teams that are integrated with the populace and the Iraqi Army and national police throughout the country. Many of these are the guys that you see occasionally on the news that have beards, dress in native regalia, usually speak Arabic and don't like to have their identities revealed for fear of retribution on their families (thus the Rick S.) Captain Szpak was the head of all the Army explosive ordnance teams in Iraq. He and his troops had the job of disarming all the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and explosive formed projectiles (EFPs) that were discovered before they were detonated. They also traveled around the country training the combat forces in recognizing and avoiding these devices in time to prevent death and injury. IEDs and EFPs are responsible for the vast majority of casualties experienced by our forces.



Despite the objective of the conference (i.e., the modular brigade concept), it quickly devolved into a 3½ hour question and answer period between the panel and the 54 retired generals and admirals who attended. I wish I had a video of the whole session to share with you because the insights were especially eye opening and encouraging. I'll try to summarize the high points as best I can.





* All returnees agreed that "we are clearly winning the fight against the insurgents but we are losing the public relations battle both in the war zone and in the States". (I'll go into more detail on each topic below.)



* All agreed that it will be necessary for us to have forces in Iraq for at least ten more years, though by no means in the numbers that are there now.



* They opined that 80% to 90% of the Iraqi people want to have us there and do not want us to leave before "the job is done".



* The morale and combat capability of the troops is the highest that the senior officers have ever seen in the 20-30 years that each has served.



* The Iraqi armed forces and police are probably better trained right now than they were under Saddam, but our standards are much higher and they lack officer leadership.



* They don't need more troops in the combat zone but they need considerably more Arab linguists and civil affairs experts.



* The IEDs and EFPs continue to be the principal problem that they face and they are becoming more sophisticated as time passes.



Public Affairs: We are losing the public affairs battle for a variety of reasons. First, in Iraq, the terrorists provide Al Jazeera with footage of their more spectacular attacks and they are on TV to the whole Arab world within minutes of the event. By contrast it takes four to six days for a story generated by Army Public Affairs to gain clearance by Combined Forces Command, two or three more days to get Pentagon clearance, and after all that, the public media may or may not run the story.



Second, the U.S. mainstream media (MSM) who send reporters to the combat zone do not like to have their people embedded with our troops. They claim that the reporters get "less objective" when they live with the soldiers and marines - they come to see the world through the eyes of the troops. As a consequence, a majority of the reporters stay in hotels in the "Green Zone" and send out native stringers to call in stories to them by cell phone which they later write up and file. No effort is made to verify any of these stories or the credibility of the stringers. The recent serious injuries to Bob Woodruff of ABC and Kimberly Dozier of CBS make the likelihood of the use of local stringers even higher.



Third, the stories that are filed by reporters in the field very seldom reach the American public as written. An anecdote from Col. McMaster illustrates this dramatically. TIME magazine recently sent a reporter to spend six weeks with the 3rd ACR as they were in the battle of Tal Afar. When the battle was over, the reporter filed his story and also included close to 100 pictures that the accompanying photographer took. TIME published a cover story on the battle a week later, allegedly using the story sent in by their reporter. When the issue came out, the guts had been edited out of their reporter's story and none of the pictures he submitted were used. Instead they showed a weeping child on the cover, taken from stock photos. When the reporter questioned why his story was eviscerated, his editors in New York responded that the story and pictures were "too heroic". McMaster had read both and told me that the editors had completely changed the thrust and context of the material their reporter had submitted.



As a sidebar on the public affairs situation, Bob McRee, who was also on the panel and is bringing a Military Police Battalion to Iraq next month, invited the Colorado Springs Gazette to send a reporter with the battalion for six weeks to two months. He assured the Gazette, in writing one month ago, that he would provide full time bodyguards for the reporter, taking the manpower out of his own hide. The Gazette has yet to respond to his offer.



Ten More Years: The idea that we will have troops in Iraq for ten more years sounds rather grim, even though by contrast, President Clinton sent troops to Bosnia and Kosovo nearly ten years ago. And they're still there with no end in sight. While Iraq is clearly a different situation right now, the panelists believe that within a few years at the most, it will become very much the same - a peace keeping, nation building function among factions that have hated one another for centuries. There is factionalism and there was bitter fighting in the Balkans before NATO intervened and with peace keepers, the panelists believe that Iraq will be a parallel situation. This, by the way, is why they all believe that linguists and civil affairs military personnel are so necessary for the future.



Rick S. went out on a limb by suggesting that if most of the troops in Iraq were deployed home "tomorrow" he could have the entire country "pacified" and the terrorist situation brought under control with just one brigade of Special Forces. Since these guys are linguists, civil affairs experts, among many other skills and talents, he may not be too far wrong.



Iraqi Attitudes: The panelists agreed that the public affairs problem manifests itself most significantly in the American public belief that the people of Iraq want us out of their country which we are occupying. They have served in different parts of the country but each agreed that we are wanted and needed there. I refer you to the anecdote from Col. McMaster and the thousands of pictures available on the internet of the U.S. forces shown in very cordial relations with the locals. Of course, our media's obsession with Abu Graib and, if the initial reports regarding the small group of Marines at Haditha prove to be true, then those attitudes will change somewhat. But as one of the panelists pointed out, the atrocities suffered under Saddam were much worse and much more common.



Morale and Capabilities: Two weeks ago, the local TV channels showed a 3rd ACR re-enlistment ceremony held at Ft. Carson and officiated by McMaster. Mind you, this unit has just returned from a one-year combat tour of hard and bloody fighting in Iraq and will likely return there again in eight to ten months. Of the 670 soldiers eligible for re-enlistment, 654 of them held up their right hands and signed on for another four years. Incredible!



The Army goal for re-enlistments for fiscal year 2006 was for 40,000 soldiers to extend their active duty commitments. With four months remaining in the fiscal year, they have already exceeded their goal of 40,000 and may have to go back to Congress for authorization to exceed their force structure manning limitations. Since Congress has been pontificating for the past couple of years that the Army is woefully under strength, that should not pose any difficulty.



Iraqi Forces: Every one of the returning commanders had experience in joint operations with the Iraqi soldiers - and in the case of some of them, with the local and national police. They all are supportive of the quality of the forces, but culturally, they believe that we may be expecting too much from them as a pre-condition for handing over greater responsibility for area control. McMaster said that he worked with the army and the police at Tal Afar and was not the least bit reluctant to assign major responsibilities to them in the operations that were conducted.



Col. Rick S.'s Green Berets, on the other hand, caught a national police lieutenant who was directing the emplacement of an IED by cell phone in order to disrupt a convoy - immediately after the lieutenant had been briefed on the convoy's route. The good news in this situation was that they were able to reroute the convoy, safely, and track the lieutenant's entire network through the use of the speed dial on his phone. Having terrorist infiltrators in both the army and the police force remains a problem. But by no means does that detract from the courage and determination of those who are loyal to the new Iraq.



Explosive Devices: The combined command in Iraq is becoming increasingly effective in countering the significant threat posed by the IEDs and EFPs. The frequency of attacks has decreased in large part through training to recognize the threat, the new technology (UAVs - unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, for example) which help to discover where the devices are emplaced, the infiltration of some of the terrorist cells, etc. However, the technology being used by the terrorists is also improving measurably. In the past six weeks, two bomb making sites were found, raided and the bad guys arrested. In both cases, the head bomb makers were master's degree graduates (one in chemistry and one in physics) from American universities. That's a lot of brain power to bring into the fight, but we also have some pretty talented people in the military, industry and academia who are doing their best to even the odds.



Conclusion: This is more than I had intended to write on the subject - so what's new a lot of you might say - but it is a subject that doesn't get the proper balance from other sources, in my judgment at least. I trust the information that we received far more than anything that I have heard or seen in our usual news sources. The most disturbing thing that I heard was that our MSM is changing the stories filed by their own people on the scene because they sound "too heroic".



The over riding opinion that I came away from the conference with is that we have incredibly talented and professional leaders who are facing up to the challenges and are making inexorable progress toward the goals of our nation. We're fortunate to have courageous and valorous people on the combat front, even though there seems to be a serious dearth of these same types of people in Congress and the mainstream media.



Paul Sutton

"Dominus Fortissima Turris"

IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' post='284836' date='Jun 21 2006, 09:00 AM']

So are you calling me a Nazi ?

I`m just prejudice against assholes, and that`s because they CHOOSE to be that way.
And when it comes to this forum, I admit, I`m prejudice against a few posters..

Sieg Heil Assholes ! [img]http://www.sebbs.de/images/faces/Cartman_hitler.gif[/img]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//37.gif[/img][/quote]



Uh-oh there is that pic of cartman as hitler again....carefull you dont want to upset any stealers fans. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='284858' date='Jun 21 2006, 08:26 AM']Uh-oh there is that pic of cartman as hitler again....carefull you dont want to upset any stealers fans. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img][/quote]



That was my intent...

I`m prejudice against Stealers fans too !

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='284714' date='Jun 20 2006, 11:38 PM']What is wrong is that stopping the spread of communism and stopping the spread of islamic extremism both appear to be cynical pretexts. Some of the previously most ardent cold warriors have come to recognize that about Vietnam (Chalmers Johnson for instance), and you'd have to be a damned fool - or something much darker - not to see that about the current policy in Iraq.

Did "your" policy change due to an attack on your soil, or was the attack provoked and allowed to happen in order to garner support for a pre-determined policy to enter the war. The historical record suggests that the latter is at least as likely as the former.

There's a difference between choosing which history to listen to and choosing to not to listen to history at all, and instead listen to rank exceptionalist and supremacist fantasy.[/quote]

look coy, whether you believe it or not, these guys want to kill us... not just me, b/c i disagree w/ them... they want to kill you just as bad as me... unless you are a muslim, that thinks that every other religion are infidels, these crazy fuckers want you dead... if stopping this type of ideology is a bad thing, then this world has became one fucked up place... the current policy in iraq is far from perfect... i wish we weren't there... but you know what, we are and lets continue to let the iraqis impress us... they have at every corner they turn, yet for some reason, we look past that and instead focus on only the .001% of the people, military, and police man that are killed...

"MY" policy changed when i started giving a fuck... before 9/11, i couldn't have told you what i wanted us to do w/ any real knowledge... before you talk me into thinking that we wanted 3000 americans to burn in the twin towers, you are going to have to come w/ some sort of evidence, proof, something like that... simple accusations and coincidences don't cut it... it doesn't in any court...

is the historical record you speak of pearl harbor? just asking......

i certainly listen to history... sorry i don't see many comparisons to vietnam... actually, i see very little similarities... the terrain is totally different... teh resistance is totally different... we are not fighting a military like we did w/ the vietcong... the amount of casualities is so different its laughable...

one things that i can see as a good comparision, is what would happen if we leave before the job is done... just like hundreds of thousands of cambodians and vietnamese were massacred for helping us out (when we said we would stand w/ them), thousands of iraqis would also be massacred and we would be letting them down again...

and anyone that uses hate, is dealing w/ too powerful emotion... you should be careful w/ hating anything/anyone...

[TheBZ]

There is some very interesting stuff there, Bung...Thanks.

What I would really like to see is a sort of Psychological/Demographic profile on the typical "insurgent".

If it is true that these people are such a minority, then who are they? Who were they before?

So much work has been put into framing it as AQ activities in Iraq, and it is simple enough to call insurgents 'terrorists'...But it doesn't speak deeply enough to the motivation of those who are planting bombs in the ground.

What I worry about, or wonder about, is the manner in which insurgent activities are dismissed into the column of terrorists.

Undoubtedly, that helps to draw the line very clearly for the purposes of the military...But for me, the act of engaging the US military directly or indirectly doesn't implicitly make for a moral wrong.

For instance...In the case of the Police Lieutenant who was working both sides, what is the motivation there? The attack he helped set up wasn't specifically a civilian attack or a haphazard explosion...It was to be directed to US forces en route.

The feeling I get is that there are so many different groups engaged, that they all get necessarily put in the same reference of 'terrorists' as an act of clarifying protagonists and antagonists.

So...If you have a loose-knit group of 1000 AQ, one would assume that they are there to make it as difficult as possible for the troops...With the civilian populace (likely) a reasonable sacrifice to their course of action.

But that doesn't answer to the numbers that would make up a 'resistance' or 'liberation' demographic...Those who would be working to remove military control/interference in the name of sovereignty.

And it certainly doesn't entail the number of incidents that must be cut and dried sectarian violence by civilians on civilians...Whether they are enlisted as police or otherwise.

Since I have made it obvious that I am a not-so-neutral observer, I will say that the AQ and sectarian motivations for insurgence are not ones that I could ever support...But I do find it a lot easier to get behind the motivations of those who would attack the troops over a matter of sovereignty. [i](Realistically, I don't think it would be hard for any of us to at least conceive of that motivation, if a foreign army was camped out in our backyard.)[/i]

And if it is just a matter of numbers...If only 10% of people in Iraq are still violently opposed to occupation, that still gives the movement a populist weight.

Just think if 10% of citizens in the US were violently opposed to anything...That would make for 30 million people ready to die for a cause, and an upswelling like that would be impossible to write off as fanaticism or terrorism.

In Iraq's case, 10% would make for what, 2.6 million people? That is a pretty large standing army of public dissidents, and cannot be written off as a terrorist movement.

Just some thoughts on all of that...

BZ

[Guest bengalrick]

you make some good points BZ... i too wonder how many true resistance folks get tied into the AQ totals... that does bother me, b/c i can certainly understand standing up and fighting against an occupyier (even though i know that is not our goal, they may not)... but that doesn't take away anything from AQ members... they are ruthless and must be stopped at all costs...

[Homer_Rice]

Thanks for passing on the General's take, Bung. I'm thinking that reality is somewhere between the perceptions of the military and the MSM. You know my bottom line: we should never have commited our troops to this illegal, unjust, and immoral war.

[quote]IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, PLEASE, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM !!![/quote]

Reminds me of an old standard of military bitching we used to say from time to time:

"The Navy is like a fan.
If you stand behind it, it sucks.
If you stand in front of it, it blows.
If you stand side by side with it, it doesn't do a g-d thing for you."

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote]look coy, whether you believe it or not, these guys want to kill us... not just me, b/c i disagree w/ them... they want to kill you just as bad as me... unless you are a muslim, that thinks that every other religion are infidels, these crazy fuckers want you dead... if stopping this type of ideology is a bad thing, then this world has became one fucked up place... the current policy in iraq is far from perfect... i wish we weren't there... but you know what, we are and lets continue to let the iraqis impress us... they have at every corner they turn, yet for some reason, we look past that and instead focus on only the .001% of the people, military, and police man that are killed...[/quote]

Look, who'sajiggit, I don't need you to lecture me about who wants to kill me - and there is no "us." Some people that want to kill you also want to kill me, but there's no "us" to you and me. Some of the people that you pretend to want to "Liberate" hate me as much as "these crazy fuckers," and probably hate you slightly less than that. I have no love for the Iraqi public because hatred for my kind is deeply ingrained in their culture. Nevertheless, right is right and wrong is wrong. Frankly, once you sort out ideology from people that just want your pasty ass and your pet Negroes and whatever the hell else you brought over there out of their country the sum and total of what you've got I find no more dangerous - and probably less so because of proximity - than the ideology and mindset of a whole lot of different types of people that live ratchere in da goodol' Yew Ayus uv Ay. The Iraqis don't impress me. If those black-hating bastards were worth a shit, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because they'd have banded together and run all the c****rs, j******s, c****s and s***s and whatnot currently overrunning their godforsaken sand-n***** country the hell up out of there instead of turning on each other and playing both ends against the middle.

[quote]"MY" policy changed when i started giving a fuck... before 9/11, i couldn't have told you what i wanted us to do w/ any real knowledge... before you talk me into thinking that we wanted 3000 americans to burn in the twin towers, you are going to have to come w/ some sort of evidence, proof, something like that... simple accusations and coincidences don't cut it... it doesn't in any court...[/quote]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so before you start invoking that, come with some sort of evidence, proof, something like that. Otherwise, 9/11 is irrelevant as far as justifying the illegal occupation of Iraq. In fact, the only thing that made Iraq relevant to the so-called War on Terror is the fact that the US illegaly invaded it and created a terror threat there. I would never try to talk you into thinking that some mythical "we" wanted anything. YOU aren't a member of the ruling elite - you're a subject. YOU don't have a fucking thing to do with what THEY want or don't want. You need to get that understood before you even begin to talk about what they may or may not have wanted or done.

[quote]is the historical record you speak of pearl harbor? just asking......

i certainly listen to history... sorry i don't see many comparisons to vietnam... actually, i see very little similarities... the terrain is totally different... teh resistance is totally different... we are not fighting a military like we did w/ the vietcong... the amount of casualities is so different its laughable...

one things that i can see as a good comparision, is what would happen if we leave before the job is done... just like hundreds of thousands of cambodians and vietnamese were massacred for helping us out (when we said we would stand w/ them), thousands of iraqis would also be massacred and we would be letting them down again...[/quote]

Pearl Harbor is a part of the historical record. The essential parallel between Iraq and Vietnam is the (and it seems like I said this before) fact that both are actions [i]against[/i] a people being conducted under the guise of being [i]for[/i] the people. They are both nakedly imperial occupations wrapped in high-toned heroic rhetoric about liberating people and quelling the spread of some godawful ideology. "You" already let the thousands of Iraqis and USians already massacred in this mess down when you allowed charlatans to occupy your government and further allowed them to conduct this illegal and immoral action.

[quote]and anyone that uses hate, is dealing w/ too powerful emotion... you should be careful w/ hating anything/anyone...[/quote]

There's nothing inherently wrong with powerful emotions, and I'm careful. Indifference is a much more insidious emotional response than hatred. Hatred is relatively easy to identify, confront and dispel. Indifference destroys far more secretly and far more thoroughly. That's what makes Americans so dangerous - they don't have enough heart to hate - they just don't give a shit. Then, when they feel threatened, it makes it that much easier for them to explode and go ape shit. Worse yet, it makes them that much more cravenly supportive of those that will do their hating and killing for them.

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='285269' date='Jun 21 2006, 10:50 PM']Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so before you start invoking that, come with some sort of evidence, proof, something like that. Otherwise, 9/11 is irrelevant as far as justifying the illegal occupation of Iraq. In fact, the only thing that made Iraq relevant to the so-called War on Terror is the fact that the US illegaly invaded it and created a terror threat there. I would never try to talk you into thinking that some mythical "we" wanted anything. [b]YOU aren't a member of the ruling elite - you're a subject. YOU don't have a fucking thing to do with what THEY want or don't want. You need to get that understood before you even begin to talk about what they may or may not have wanted or done.[/b][/quote]

This is the same feeling that I keep having when we are in the middle of some of these arguments.

I just don't see how the level of loyalty could be so all-fired high when it is so obvious that you, the faithful, get treated with so much contempt by the ruling elite.

If it isn't a matter of outright lies, then it is the stripping of your economic spending power through prices for oil, etc. etc., and the general disintegration of the middle class you occupy.

Ultimately, it comes off like recurring acts of spousal abuse...And everyday, you just get up and put on your sunglasses again to pretend that the bruises aren't there and no one can see them.

As citizens, your opinion seems to have absolutely no relevance to what is happening with the military, with the economy, with the continuing shift towards corporate power, and with the laws that are being made that sacrifice privacy and autonomy...

So how is it that you can feel so closely affiliated to the administration that any criticisms made are instantly internalized as being against your person?

It seems to happen just about every time a criticism is made...Especially from abroad. To me, it's a lot of self-aggrandizement, because frankly I don't even see the American 'Everyman' as remotely responsible or even in the equation as to what is happening in the world...

You seem to have no political power or control over your own lives, so how can the charge be against you...Other than the fact that you are upset about being shaken from your reverie?

Just say it over and over...

[i]"Everything is going to be ok"
"The government is for the people"
"We are the greatest country in the world...I must have more freedom than anyone else."[/i]

BZ

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b][center]Sums it up perfectly [/b]


[img]http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060621/sack.jpg[/img][/center]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='285297' date='Jun 22 2006, 12:13 AM']This is the same feeling that I keep having when we are in the middle of some of these arguments.

I just don't see how the level of loyalty could be so all-fired high when it is so obvious that you, the faithful, get treated with so much contempt by the ruling elite.

If it isn't a matter of outright lies, then it is the stripping of your economic spending power through prices for oil, etc. etc., and the general disintegration of the middle class you occupy.

Ultimately, it comes off like recurring acts of spousal abuse...And everyday, you just get up and put on your sunglasses again to pretend that the bruises aren't there and no one can see them.

As citizens, your opinion seems to have absolutely no relevance to what is happening with the military, with the economy, with the continuing shift towards corporate power, and with the laws that are being made that sacrifice privacy and autonomy...

So how is it that you can feel so closely affiliated to the administration that any criticisms made are instantly internalized as being against your person?

It seems to happen just about every time a criticism is made...Especially from abroad. To me, it's a lot of self-aggrandizement, because frankly I don't even see the American 'Everyman' as remotely responsible or even in the equation as to what is happening in the world...

You seem to have no political power or control over your own lives, so how can the charge be against you...Other than the fact that you are upset about being shaken from your reverie?

Just say it over and over...

[i]"Everything is going to be ok"
"The government is for the people"
"We are the greatest country in the world...I must have more freedom than anyone else."[/i]

BZ[/quote]


Except that the everyman continues to signal assent, consent and even vehement support. Lack of resistance is bad enough, but maybe understandable - outright lubrication deserves criticism.

[TheBZ]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='285830' date='Jun 22 2006, 10:13 PM']Except that the everyman continues to signal assent, consent and even vehement support. Lack of resistance is bad enough, but maybe understandable - outright lubrication deserves criticism.[/quote]

I was trying to take a softer tack...But I agree completely.

At what point is a population accountable for the sins of an administration?

That is what we're going to find out over the next 3-10 years.

BZ

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='TheBZ' post='285909' date='Jun 23 2006, 12:25 AM']I was trying to take a softer tack...But I agree completely.

At what point is a population accountable for the sins of an administration?

That is what we're going to find out over the next 3-10 years.

BZ[/quote]

are you saying that we should round up decenters, that agreed w/ the war? fuck being a socialist, your a fucking communist!!!!

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='286099' date='Jun 23 2006, 09:59 AM']are you saying that we should round up decenters, that agreed w/ the war? fuck being a socialist, your a fucking communist!!!![/quote]


[b]I believe he was saying that at some point ... we will get attacked (for real this time not like on 9/11 by Mossad & PNAC) = and it will be the chickens coming to roost.

Sadly it will mostly be in a large city which are all mostly Democratic ... so they will suffer from the bloodlust of people living in rural Nebraska [/b]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='286110' date='Jun 23 2006, 10:19 AM'][b]I believe he was saying that at some point ... we will get attacked (for real this time not like on 9/11 by Mossad & PNAC) = and it will be the chickens coming to roost.

Sadly it will mostly be in a large city which are all mostly Democratic ... so they will suffer from the bloodlust of people living in rural Nebraska [/b][/quote]

i was sort of joking... i doubted that he meant what i said... but what you saiddoes makes sense (i guess)... but the reason we were attacked in the first place is b/c we left somalia like a bunch of pussies... i won't find the quote from osama again b/c i have already posted in plenty of times, but you know what i'm talking about... its that "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing... i'm not saying that the war didn't piss people off, and it could bring out more attacks, but like i just said, that isn't why we were already attacked... these guys just don't like us... simple as that...

and yeah, terrorists don't really give a fuck who sticks up for them or not... they care about killing as many people as possible, so large cities (usually democratic havens) are the targets...