Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > POLITICS, WORLD ISSUES & WORLD EVENTS
Connect with Facebook

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December-3rd-2004, 07:25 PM   #1
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post All Iraq-Quagmire Related Material Here

Now that we have a court system that approves of torture and Patriot II on the table, a good ass kicking for Uncle Sam in Mesopotamia is the only hope for turning this country around.

Here's hoping for a return of Vietnam Syndrome, tenfold.



http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...140371,00.html

Terrorists Kill 30 at Police Station, Mosque

Friday, December 03, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq — A rebel group led by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) has claimed responsibility for some of the 30 deaths that resulted from two major attacks Friday against a Shiite mosque and a police station in Baghdad.

The attacks were the deadliest insurgent attacks in weeks as Iraq girds itself against increasing violence heading into the country's Jan. 30 elections.

Also Friday, a U.S. soldier was killed and two were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their patrol near the northern city of Kirkuk, the U.S. military said.

The police station attack occurred in the western Amil district. Enemy gunmen stormed the station near the dangerous road to Baghdad International Airport (search), killing 16 policemen, looting weapons, releasing detainees and torching several cars, police Capt. Mohammed al-Jumeili said. He said several policemen were wounded.

The U.S. Embassy on Thursday barred employees from the highway leading to Baghdad's airport, the scene of frequent attacks on vehicles.

In the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Azamiyah, police said a car bomb exploded at a Shiite (search) mosque called Hameed al-Najar, killing 14 people and wounding 19.

Azamiyah was a major center of Sunni (search) support for former dictator Saddam Hussein, and the targeting of the mosque may have been a bid by Sunnis to stoke civil strife in the area. It wasn't clear who was behind the bombing.

The imam of a Sunni mosque in the same neighborhood condemned the attack and warned Muslims to be wary of people trying to ignite a sectarian conflict.

"Iraqi resistance has nothing to do with bombing mosques and churches and killing innocent people in markets and streets," said Sheik Ahmed Hassan Al-Taha, imam of Abu Hanifa mosque. "These acts are against the law of God."

The Zarqawi Connection

Zarqawi's Sunni rebel group, Al Qaeda in Iraq, claimed responsibility for the police station attack. The claim, which appeared on an Islamic Web site, could not immediately be verified.

"The destructive effect that such operations has on the morale of the enemy inside and on its countries and people abroad is clear," the claim said.

Zarqawi's group is believed to be behind many of the insurgent attacks against coalition and Iraqi forces.

Bodies of executed Iraqi police and other security officials have been found littered across former insurgent strongholds that U.S. and Iraqi forces have been cleaning out. His group is also supposedly responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of a number of western and other contractors and workers in Iraq.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jim Hutton said the battle began when gunmen in 11 cars attacked the station with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire. He said a U.S. military Humvee was also damaged. There were no American casualties.

Detainees being held at the station were also hurt, al-Jumeili said. There was no word on the insurgents' casualties.

The rebels had first shelled the station with mortars. Thick black smoke rose from the burning vehicles after the attack.

The claim from al-Zarqawi's group said 30 people were killed in the Amil attack and only two escaped. The group also claimed responsibility for an attack on another police station in Azamiyah, the same neighborhood where the mosque was bombed. There were no reports of casualties from the strike on that police station.

In the same claim, Zarqawi's group said it attacked two police patrols in the western Baghdad area of Nafq al-Shorta, killing everyone, but that could not be verified.

Possible Plot Against Allawi

In Berlin, German authorities arrested three Iraqis on suspicion that they planned an attack on Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi (search) while he was visiting Germany on Friday, the country's chief prosecutor said.

The arrests were announced while Allawi was in Berlin and hours before he met German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (search).

Investigators who had the three suspects under surveillance noticed an increase in activity, phone calls and suspicious movements by one of the suspects before Allawi's visit that amounted to "evidence of plans of an attack," chief federal prosecutor Kay Nehm said.

All three were members of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam (search), Nehm said at his agency's headquarters in Karlsruhe.

City Councilmen Killed

Meanwhile, two city councilmen from Khalis were ambushed and killed by gunmen Friday, officials said.

The two were driving from Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, to Baqouba, the capital of Diala province, to attend the regional meeting on the country's Jan. 30 elections, said deputy governor Ghassan al-Khadran. He said a third councilman was injured in the attack.

The attacks in Amil and Azamiyah were the latest against Iraq's police and security services, which have been targeted throughout central, western and northern Iraq in recent weeks.

In Mosul, fighting began when insurgents fired several mortar rounds at a U.S. base, causing no damage or casualties. Iraqi and American forces went out to find the source of those attacks and came under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. Some of the gunmen took cover in a mosque that Iraqi commanders then cleared, finding stores of weapons, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Hastings said.

Maj. Gen. Rashid Feleih, commander of the Iraqi commandos force in Mosul, said gunmen also attacked two police stations, killing one policeman and injuring two. Police returned fire, killing at least 11 attackers and capturing three.

Mosul's police force disintegrated during an insurgent uprising last month, forcing the U.S. command to divert troops from their offensive in the militant stronghold of Fallujah.

On Thursday, insurgents killed an American soldier in the restive city of Mosul, and mortar strikes pummeled central Baghdad.

Despite the violence, a top Iraqi official insisted the security situation had improved since U.S. forces scattered insurgents in the Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah last month.

To provide security for the election, the U.S. government has announced it is raising troop strength in Iraq to its highest level of the war. The number of troops will climb from 138,000 now to about 150,000 by mid-January — more than in the 2003 invasion.

While Iraq's Kurds and majority Shiites back the elections, Sunni groups have demanded a postponement because of the poor security. President Bush dismissed those calls Thursday, insisting the elections must not be delayed.

"It's time for Iraqi citizens to go to the polls," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office.

Hastings said Iraqi and U.S. forces discovered 14 unidentified bodies in Mosul on Thursday. He said there were also reports of five more bodies picked up by family members. That brings to at least 66 the number of bodies — many of them believed members of the Iraqi security forces — found there since Nov. 18.

Mosul's police force disintegrated during an insurgent uprising last month, forcing the U.S. command to divert troops from the offensive in Fallujah.

Also Thursday, attackers launched at least five mortars in central Baghdad, including two that crashed into the Green Zone, the compound that houses Iraq's interim administration and U.S. diplomatic missions.

U.S. senators visiting Iraq on Thursday said they were pleased with Bush's decision raising troop levels, but criticized him for not doing so earlier.

"We should have leveled with the American people in the beginning," Sen. Joseph Biden (search), a Democrat from Delaware, told reporters. "It was absolutely inevitable" that more troops would be needed, he said.

The U.S. Embassy decision to ban its employees from using the highway to the airport followed a nearly identical warning Monday from Britain's Foreign Office. The embassy also cautioned Americans in Iraq to review their security situation and warned those planning to travel to Iraq to consider whether the trip was "absolutely necessary."

However, Qassim Dawoud, Iraq's national security adviser, said insurgent attacks were down since the invasion of Fallujah. He provided no details but said Iraq didn't need U.S.-led coalition forces' help to safeguard the election.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 07:30 PM   #2
Scott Dolan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assclown
Now that we have a court system that approves of torture and Patriot II on the table, a good ass kicking for Uncle Sam in Mesopotamia is the only hope for turning this country around.

Here's hoping for a return of Vietnam Syndrome, tenfold.

So I take it you are against this war?

If so, why?

Is it because of all the people who have and will die?

I see that American soldiers deaths don't count, though.

How charming.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 07:36 PM   #3
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I see that American soldiers deaths don't count, though.

How charming.


I don't wish death on anybody, neither Iraqi civilians nor American soldiers.

International law provides all people with the right to armed resistance against illegal occupation. I don't agree with the political character of the Iraqi resistance, but I do think they are legally entitled to their resistance.

Unfortunately, most Americans only seem to turn against a war when their own sons and daughters come home in body bags.

Here's hoping that the situation turns into a defeat for the U.S. as quickly as possible, to avoid any more unnecessary deaths.

Last edited by Ed the Happy Clown; December-3rd-2004 at 07:37 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 08:23 PM   #4
Monte Smith
************
 
Monte Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester United States of America
Posts: 15,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed the Happy Clown
Now that we have a court system that approves of torture and Patriot II on the table, a good ass kicking for Uncle Sam in Mesopotamia is the only hope for turning this country around.
You are wrong in many respects, the easiest to correct being that we do not have "on the table" a second Patriot Act. We do have on this board a brand new paranoid discussion of the same, but the legislation it pretends to discuss is from 2003.
Monte Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 08:37 PM   #5
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte Smith
You are wrong in many respects, the easiest to correct being that we do not have "on the table" a second Patriot Act. We do have on this board a brand new paranoid discussion of the same, but the legislation it pretends to discuss is from 2003.

Monte,

I stand corrected on PATRIOT II. My main point still stands: a military defeat for U.S. forces is the only hope for international law. I say this as somebody who hates the political character of the Iraqi insurgency and everything it stands for, and who has nothing but contempt for people who would make apologies for Islamic fascism by arguing that it represents some sort of misguided cry of the oppressed.

Nonetheless, we invaded Iraq, not the other way around. I have no side in this conflict, but my loyalty to the republican principles the United States was founded on leads me to hope for a resounding defeat for U.S. forces in Iraq, as quickly as possible.

Last edited by Ed the Happy Clown; December-3rd-2004 at 08:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 08:43 PM   #6
Monte Smith
************
 
Monte Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester United States of America
Posts: 15,521
I respect your opinion, Ed, but no I don't.
Monte Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 11:07 PM   #7
Scott Dolan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Here's hoping that the situation turns into a defeat for the U.S. as quickly as possible

Yet folks were so shocked when Coda questioned which side they were on yesterday.

Well, at least you refuse to hide behind the whole "I don't support the war, but I support our troops" lie that liberlas have been spouting all this time.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 11:13 PM   #8
kenny weir
dirty antipodal jackalope
 
kenny weir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tumble down shack in Big Foot County
Posts: 1,657
So in your world, Scott, supporting the troops automatically requires supporting the war? (I'm not endorsing, BTW, Ed's views one way or the other.)
__________________
Kenny no longer on the radio. Seeking radio station that isn't so pigeonhole-bound that it can't handle an approach that takes in Louis Armstrong, Sun Ra, the Grateful Dead and Bob Wills.
kenny weir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-3rd-2004, 11:16 PM   #9
Scott Dolan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
No.


But I've always felt that Ed's feelings are what most liberlas really feel. Let's face it, winning this war could be one of the worst things that ever happened to the wacky left.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 10:12 AM   #10
Monte Smith
************
 
Monte Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester United States of America
Posts: 15,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny weir
So in your world...supporting the troops automatically requires supporting the war?
Support for the troops does generally entail not hoping that they get "a good ass-kicking." That kind of thinking, actually, is supporting the enemy. You know there is a difference: the enemy/our troops. I see a distinction, at any rate. Call me nuts.
Monte Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 11:05 AM   #11
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Scott, Monte, you guys ain't too bright.


There's a fundamental difference between wishing personal harm on somebody, and supporting the right, guaranteed under international law, to resist an illegal occupation.


"Support the troops" is a red herring used to browbeat liberals into submission. Since I'm not a liberal, that sort of guilt tripping has no effect on me.

I wish no personal harm on "the troops." I do wish a military defeat on the U.S. If you don't understand the difference, you have no business engaging in serious political discussion.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 12:56 PM   #12
Scott Dolan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ed,


You cannot say that you wish for the U.S. to receive a major ass kicking and then claim to support the troops. But if you can explain to me how wishing a major ass kicking on people isn't wishing them harm, then I'm all ears. How might that ass kicking NOT involve harm?


I'd like to see you vomit that horrendous bullshit in the face of a soldier who has returned from there, because a good ass kicking for a traitorous idiot is the only hope of turning him around.


C'mon, give it a shot. Walk right up and say "hey, I really DO support you guys, but I'm hoping like hell you get your ass kicked".


And don't give me your pompous horseshit, you're no genius, I've read many of your posts.

Last edited by Scott Dolan; December-4th-2004 at 01:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:13 PM   #13
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Where did I say I support the troops? I said the whole notion of "supporting the troops" is a red herring.


As for the difference between wishing a military defeat for the U.S. and wishing personal harm on troops, let's use another formulation as an analogy:

"Anybody who supports the war in Iraq wishes death on Iraqi civilians."

Now of course there are supporters of the war who in fact do not wish death on Iraqi civilians, nonetheless, the waging of a war entails a lot of civilian deaths. Would it then be fair to characterize you and every other supporter of the war as people who welcome the death of innocent civilians?

Please tell me you aren't that thick.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:20 PM   #14
lynn
End The War
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,947
I didn't support the runup to the war and I don't support the war. I feel really horrible for the troops over there, and the ones they continue to extend their tours to insure what exactly.

The ones who deserve the ass whippin' is the Bush administration and all the other sissy boys who took us to war but would never fight one themselves.

For those of you who did not yet exist during the Vietnam War, this is like a deja vue, except they cleaned up the footage and dropped the body counts.

Our troops deserve our support. This war doesn't.
lynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:22 PM   #15
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynn
Our troops deserve our support.

This sounds fine, but I haven't the slightest clue what this is supposed to mean in practice.

Usually, it's invoked by war supporters as a means of silencing dissent. As in, "it's okay to oppose the war during the build-up period, but once the shooting starts, shut your mouth because we have to support our troops."

I don't want "our troops" to die. However, I don't support what they are doing in Iraq. I support their right to come home alive, i.e. I support an immediate U.S. withdrawal.

Last edited by Ed the Happy Clown; December-4th-2004 at 01:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:23 PM   #16
sonic1
Tragically Impressionable
 
sonic1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,422
I have too many close friends and former co-workers over there or on their way over there to wish the US an ass-kicking. And believe me, they don't wanna go but they were signed up in the national guard.

Two of them have children to come home to.

Despite the clowns remarks, some of us can not be for the war but support troops. Though I don't sport yellow ribbons on my car or flags for that matter, I help my friend John's family out, now that his wife is alone for an undetermined amount of time raising their child.

But I also respect the "enemy" enough to call them more than just "insurgents". They are, after all, fighting for their country. Nothing that you may not do in the same position.
sonic1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:27 PM   #17
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonic1
Despite the clowns remarks, some of us can not be for the war but support troops.

I never said the two things were contradictory. I said I haven't the slightest clue what the phrase "support the troops" is supposed to mean, except when used as a means of silencing war critics.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:28 PM   #18
sonic1
Tragically Impressionable
 
sonic1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,422
well read my post and maybe you might find another meaning to the phrase

Last edited by sonic1; December-4th-2004 at 01:28 PM.
sonic1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:31 PM   #19
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You mean this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sonic1
I help my friend John's family out, now that his wife is alone for an undetermined amount of time raising their child.

Sounds good to me.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:33 PM   #20
lynn
End The War
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed the Happy Clown
This sounds fine, but I haven't the slightest clue what this is supposed to mean in practice.

Usually, it's invoked by war supporters as a means of silencing dissent. As in, "it's okay to oppose the war during the build-up period, but once the shooting starts, shut your mouth because we have to support our troops."

I don't want "our troops" to die. However, I don't support what they are doing in Iraq. I support their right to come alive, i.e. I support an immediate U.S. withdrawal.

Neither do I but they are following orders. Many of these guys are National Guard. What the hell are they doing in Iraq?
lynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:34 PM   #21
sonic1
Tragically Impressionable
 
sonic1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,422
Ed, I agree that people who say "support the troops" just pay lip service and really mean something about not talking shit about the war.

But everyone on both sides of the issue miss the point of "supporting the troops".

It means supporting them, personally. It is the only support they really care about. Believe me they don't give a shit if you have a sticker on your car. And most of them don't mind if you are against the war.
sonic1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:35 PM   #22
lynn
End The War
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonic1
I have too many close friends and former co-workers over there or on their way over there to wish the US an ass-kicking. And believe me, they don't wanna go but they were signed up in the national guard.

Two of them have children to come home to.

Despite the clowns remarks, some of us can not be for the war but support troops. Though I don't sport yellow ribbons on my car or flags for that matter, I help my friend John's family out, now that his wife is alone for an undetermined amount of time raising their child.

But I also respect the "enemy" enough to call them more than just "insurgents". They are, after all, fighting for their country. Nothing that you may not do in the same position.
That is exactly what I mean.
lynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-4th-2004, 01:38 PM   #23
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonic1
It means supporting them, personally.

Yeah, that's fine, sounds good to me. I lost a cousin to the war, so it's too late for me to support him personally, though I certainly do support his immediate family.

I agree with Lynn that the U.S. government is the real guilty party. But I find "supporting the troops" is often invoked to obscure the fact that this is an illegal war and occupation, and that the people of Iraq are fully entitled under international law to engage in armed resistance. That doesn't mean it's a good thing when a U.S. soldier dies, but it does mean we shouldn't blame the Iraqis.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-5th-2004, 01:29 PM   #24
Sergio Zamora
Registered Loser
 
Sergio Zamora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Altered State Of Drugafornia
Posts: 7,663
The only thing I disagree with Ed on is his assessment of the general composition of the Iraqi resistance, on which I've read differing reports. As he says however, that is entirely irrelevant.

The policy of defeatism is a very difficult thing for even the most conscious leftists to follow for fairly obvious reasons. When you have the right spouting nonsense arguments like 'support our troops', it makes it hard to get to the core of the matter.

It would be great if the Iraqi resistance were led by charismatic Subcomandante-Marcos-like idealists, but regardless of that, they have the right to resist. Just like all of you do if the tables were turned.

preemptive note: before some bright legalist argues that, in fact, the continuing occupation of Iraq is UN-sanctioned, I say the UN can go fuck itself too - whatever the curent legal status, the continuing occupation *is* criminal.

cowardly note: if Rommy or the INS is reading this, I'm just kidding.
Sergio Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-5th-2004, 01:53 PM   #25
Uli
poor folk's child
 
Uli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 12,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora



preemptive note: before some bright legalist argues that, in fact, the continuing occupation of Iraq is UN-sanctioned, I say the UN can go fuck itself too - whatever the curent legal status, the continuing occupation *is* criminal.
As one of the truly brights here I still think this war was illegal from the get go (I would only use that argument "legalistically" to get out of the troops because I still wonder how our supremes would answer this) stupid, immoral and counterproductive in terms of war against terror.

I don't think the continuing occupation is UN-sanctioned. And I agree that some of the insurgents have a right to resist. But I don't think that we can let the fundamentalist get all the power. That's just not fair to the Iraquis.

Last edited by Uli; December-5th-2004 at 01:54 PM.
Uli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-5th-2004, 01:59 PM   #26
sonic1
Tragically Impressionable
 
sonic1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,422
Yeah, we pissed off the wasp nest. Not fair to let other people pay the price.

That said, I think the iraqis are paying the price no matter what we do.
sonic1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-5th-2004, 05:23 PM   #27
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora
It would be great if the Iraqi resistance were led by charismatic Subcomandante-Marcos-like idealists
OZ,

I'm not looking for the Iraqi Marcos, just people who aren't intent on driving the Jews into the sea. Neo-Nazis love the Iraqi resistance. They share the same blood and soil ideology dedicated to overthrow of "parasitic Jewish-Yankee finance capital." That's why you have things like the "Anti-Imperialist Coordination," based out of Vienna, which is crawling with fascist bottom feeders pledging "10 euros for the resistance in Iraq."

The Zionist project has had catastrophic historical results, but Israel is there, and it's there to stay, and anybody who refuses to recognize this is either malicious or living in a fantasy world (or both), like certain Laptop Lenins that you and I both know.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-5th-2004, 05:27 PM   #28
Ed the Happy Clown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
P.S. sonic nice to see you back with the Stockhausen avatar. Way cool.
  Reply With Quote
Old December-6th-2004, 10:37 AM   #29
Gary Sisco
The Bluegrass
 
Gary Sisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: no country for old men
Posts: 30,835
The Vietnam Syndrome is very much alive and well. Ask nearly anyone in the US, regardless of political stance or no stance at all, what they would think of reinstituting the draft.

Nuff said.
Gary Sisco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December-6th-2004, 12:34 PM   #30
Darryl G. Thomas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Upper Marlboro, Maryland
Posts: 2,935
My greatest wish would be an immediate withdrawal of American forces. That would end the needless injuries and ends of American lives. It has nothing to do with politics, that was over on Nov.3.

So I'm not for a major ass-whupping because that would entail a lot of American deaths. The troops aren't the enemy, the policy makers are. But they're not going to suffer one lick.

The Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes is dead. No money, troops caught up in Afghanistan and Iraq. The neo-con fantasy ends at the end of this term. I don't think the next Presidential candidate will fall for that B.S.

The Viet Nam syndrome hasn't left us. That's why the Pentagon goes through such pains to make war seem has harmless as a video game. That's why you don't see flag draped caskets landing at Dover AFB. They've learned from the PR mistakes of Viet Nam. That's why the American public hasn't been asked to fund this war, we run it on borrowed money. That's why the American public hasn't been asked to man (via the draft) this war.

The only one to be punished by an Iraqi ass-whupping is some cat who joined the military to escape some dead-end existence on the lower economic class scale. Maybe get a skill or pay for some college (whose costs are rapidly rising above his reach).

Screw politics. Right now it's about getting out alive. In the end, Bush'll go back to his ranch a multi-millionaire. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfie, et al will join some board of directors (Haliburton?), Iraq will subdivide along ethnic and eligious lines, and a bunch of cats at Walter Reed will go home in wheel chairs or sporting artifical limbs.
Darryl G. Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > POLITICS, WORLD ISSUES & WORLD EVENTS

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All material copyright 2009 jazzcorner.com