Cuz it's just so easy believing the US is the rightful heir to the World (and as a bonus you need not question why ?).
I guess these guys also believed the war was about ``Operation Iraqi Freedom". Yeah, no doubt. And I bet all the providers they see cum in each of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... rounds.
BTW, I said Typical - Not all Bushies are morons (sigma^{2} approximately {nloglog(n)}^{-1}).
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 8:12:41 PM
The way the admin and the press always call any combatants against their interests "terrorists"? Hey people- if you are targeting soldiers and other relatively legitimate military/political enemies- you just might be a Guerrilla fighter or an insurgent.
Terrorist is really held out for those who target civilian or non-military and non-political enemies. Where you are trying to intimidate or terrorise civilians.
I abhor all the killings that go on in Iraq, but an american soldier, even if he is sitting on the shitter, is a legit target if you are fighting the occupation. I want him alive, he wants to be alive, but if an insurgent attacks- that is a legit target. Even some of the contractors- especially if they are handling security or admin for soldiers or political people- legit targets.
On the other hand, blowing up civilians at a bus stop? Pretty much terror.
Might be splitting hairs- but what's good for the goose.... Basically if you would have cheered if we had done the same trhing to the Germans in France in WWII, it's probably guerrilla. If you are deeply shocked and sorry for the loss of INNOCENT life- closer to terrorism.
This is a distinction WITH a difference!
how "we had it coming" when they cut off ours.
A distinction con una differencia.....
suave........
The hairsplitter.
And who would that be?
Sully
Aware that WARS have two sides.
"Sully
Aware that WARS have two sides."
And THAT is what makes YOU an intellectual giant. You should teach a class.....
a) No, but it is what makes your post so whiney and pathetically weak. Typical american "take my ball and go home if we can't play my way" stuff.
b) Did it. The Civil War for my ROTC brethren (funny- I am very weak on American history- but stronger than the Prof was-so he let me do it). And some Peace and Conflict Studies seminars.
c) I am no intellectual giant. A pale shadow of my father... But it DOES NOT take much to best a lot of posters here. You are no Funtime, who is probably certifiable, but no real challenge for anyone who's read a newspaper in the last ten years.
Stay around. You clearly have a great deal to learn. And we're so much less imposing here among friends than a school atmosphere, something you clearly found intimidating. Glad to have you open your mind.
and any response we don't like is outrageous!
There's a whole world out there, check it out!
Perhaps the move to long pants was premature, my friend.
Cuz it's just so easy believing the US is the rightful heir to the World (and as a bonus you need not question why ?).
I guess these guys also believed the war was about ``Operation Iraqi Freedom". Yeah, no doubt. And I bet all the providers they see cum in each of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd ... rounds.
BTW, I said Typical - Not all Bushies are morons (sigma^{2} approximately {nloglog(n)}^{-1}).
-- Modified on 6/23/2004 8:12:41 PM
The original name for our invasion was "Operation Iraqi Liberation", until some braniac in the Bush administration figured out that the acronym spelled "OIL".
Too bad George W. & Co. didn't put as much thought into administering the war aftermath, as they did in naming the operation.
Yes, they need cool sounding acronyms. I refrain from using 9/11 as it trivializes (IMHO) the horror (in 20 years kids may confuse it for 7/11 and wonder ``what's wrong with the slurpees''). I call it what it was - the World Trade Center attacks (or WTC attacks - at least have attack in there).
I guess "OIL" was being a bit too honest for Bush et al.
Not sure why everyone things that the war was about oil... As far as I can see the price of gas is about 2.31 this morning.
So where is this oil at?
Semper Fi!
-- Modified on 6/25/2004 8:13:00 AM
The oil industry has cut refinery capacity by 40% in the U.S. over the past 25 years, while at the same time, demand has gone up by even more than that.
-- Modified on 6/25/2004 8:56:00 AM
for reasons of environmental pressures and not in my backyard communities than anything else. I could be wrong but that's my take on it. In a meeting last year where the Arco refinery manager spoke I got the distinct impression his job was more about politics than cracking crude.
If you've ever been in a refinery, and I've been in many, the ground is so contaminated I wonder if any technology would be able to effectively remediate the site if the refinery were to close down. Short of removal and landfill I wonder if it could be done. Anyone??
Bottom line seems to be, can't close em down because of cleanup costs, can't open em up because of environmental restrictions. It's a damn tough spot to be in. As a result we rely on offshore producers where there are little if any environmental restrictions, and plenty of crude.
Although I'd like to think our recent forays in the middle east were born singularly out of terrorist concerns our own domestic problems with oil production and refining seem to contradict that.
Excuse me, but I believe that your numbers are a bit off regarding the change over time in capacity. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Ref_image_Crude_runs.htm
Your charts show about a 15% decline in capacity through 2000. I've heard that there has been an additional cutback in capacity of around 25% in the past 4 years, as more old capacity has been taken off line without being replaced. This includes 2 refineries in California that I know of.
Personally, if you feel that I am a moron, that's your right. I stood up and defended your freedom to say that.
However, if we are to sit on our thumbs when we can change the world then aren't worth much. I believe we can do whatever we want and quite honestly if the cause is just and someone has a cow about it, then go cry to your momma.
I supported the war in Iraq, I have several friends over their right now. I know what kind of crap they are going through and they are not complaining about why they are there.
This nation is the last "Superpower". We have a duty to help the rest of the world when the $^#@ hits the fan. If we can stop something before it happens then we should.
While the below comparision may be a hard for some of you to understand, hear me out.
World War I - Germany starts and wages war. Eventually defeated and sactions are imposed on what they can and cannot do.
World War II - After Germany rebuilds its military against sanctions imposed on them. Repeats World War I.
Iraq - Invades Kuwait and wages war. Defeated by coalalition and sanctions imposed.
Iraq - Ignores sanctions and interferes with United Nations. Resolution after resolution passes and is ignored. Before Iraq can rebuild it military. U.S. removes dictator from power.
History has a tendacy to repeat itself if people ignore the facts.
Semper Fi!
I do not agree with the action of the manner in which it was carried out- but that is immaterial. If he drove military trucks -supplied our military, or worked on our aircraft- then he is a legit target for a guerrilla. When the Yugo partisans killed the Italian drivers of trucks supplying the Italo-German occupying force in WWII, we helped 'em so I think that is legit.
The actual mechanics of the killing probalby breaks some rules- (I have NOT looked up beheading in the Geneva accords, but its probalby frowned apon) but the target selection does meet guerrilla criterion
Attacks on the Iraqi govt can be viewed as going after collaborators, so you can see that a lot of these attacks however awful and grotesquely violent are part of their campaign and not necessarily "terror".
You sort of have to used the what would we have done in WWII? test to see how the press skews it all. In a way it helps to disprove the "liberal press" canard- as almost all the US press uses the administrations' terms, even when they are wrong.
I don't like any US personnel getting killed. But we got into a WAR. People die in wars, and both sides are entitled to fight. and its only by preserving the distinction between legitimate insurgent fighting and terrorism that we can show how over the top terrorism is.
BTW- the attacks on Oil infrasturcture? Can be viewed as legit too, like us bombing Ploesti or French trains
You all seemed to be fucking experts on the Geneva Convention when it came to installing underwear over an attached head! Or making fun of the size of "attached" cocks!
Guerrilla or not, the action was taken to instill terror, forthwith an act of TERRORISM. Of all the techniques of killing, can you imagine many that are more terrifying? And your and the rest of the neo-socialist here had much more fury with the underwear scandal!
(Guerilla: n. a member of a small force of irregular soldiers, making surprise raids.) (Thug: n. a brutal hoodlum, gangster, etc.) It seems thug is a better description according to Webster.
The anti-Christian hysteria here amuses me. Militant fundamental Muslims are beheading innocent people, killing 3,000 of our people in the WTC and Pentagon, killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis almost daily and you write what appears a post justifying their methods! Christians are what, voting for their choice of candidates, sheesh, I totally understand your fear. Oh, by the way, say hello to the monster under your bed tonight for me! I would ask who's side are you on, but I tire of liberal neo-socialist whining about attacking their Patriotism, that however would require a modicum of ..., oh never mind.
BriBri-
Don't think I equte the abu ghraib stuff with beheadings. I for one am sure that this is pretty pale stuff conmpared to what the Mukhabarat got up to there as recently as 16 months ago! But then we expect a higher standard of our guys- that 's how we are supposed to be grabbing the higher moral ground. If we don;t take the high road- then this is all a regime change to get better access to Oil and install a puppet state- and I hope none of us are in favour of that.
Kidnappings do tend to be terrorist in nature, but attacks on Police stations are Military. I will admit that the Muslim right does tend to mix up their activities- using BOTH guerilla attacks and terrorist acts to wage their campaign of violence. We present them with both kinds of targets, and they choose both kinds of reposnse. We are constrained by trying to respond with only Military counter insurgency.
But if we resort to counter -terror? We lose.
I will admit the position is tough. Now we may be paying for all our hand wringing over Israel and Britain's anti-terrorist strategies and tactics in the 70s 80s and 90s. Ronnie-Pops "brave" decision to run away from Lebanon and deal with the Irangate issues is also to blame. We are on record as being one of the most easily shaken countries, so enemies will try to shake us.
(BTW- the French are actually good a this. totally unpredictable administrations. Good special forces. First responders who ARE NOT CITIZENS- so no-one care about casualties {foreign legion}but we decided we did not need their help)
Whiny whiny whiny whiny- americans so need to get over themselves...
If you had in custody a known terrorists who had planted a nuclear device in your hometown which would kill thousands, would you:
A. Call your ATF?
B. Interrogate him to the extent of the Geneva Convention? (Oh, and don't forget this rat bastard thinks he's going to get laid right after the big boom!)
C. Shit your pants?
D. Do whatever it took to get the information out of him to save the lives of those forementioned thousands? And then call your ATF!
Personally, I would begin with a gelding. And from there I would just get mean! What would you do?
-- Modified on 6/25/2004 5:10:16 PM
We're the good guys, remember? That's what makes America the great country it is.
I sure as hell hope you don't think good guys are suckers, because that is the coward's way out.
-- Modified on 6/26/2004 10:34:24 AM
A bad memory!
The fact is, Torture does not produce reliable information. If it did, I would probably agree with choosing D.
A lot depends on who I am. A private citizen? All bets are off.
If I am a soldier /cop, I pretty much need to obey the law, and I would. I might go in for sleep deprivation or the other non-lethal means. Definately go for the chemicals.
More likely go the mind fuck types of interrogations. But violence is so seldom really effective.
FYI
No ATF- They are not too good in these situations- more usually working on Gun or Alcohol issues.
No need for that gelding you wanted. Why bring a horse into this?