Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

War is NOT the Answer...

Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism.

Other than that, NADA!

CHEERS!

BILLY BONES


Comments

How did war end Communism?

Isn't our bid daddy, China, a communist coutnry? Didn't we lose in Vietnam?

How is the "war" doing against terrorism? FAILURE! War is sometimes necessary as a last resort. As we are using it now, we are only bankrupting ourselves and ruining our country.


All war belongs on paper. WE NEED TO PUT THE GUNS AWAY AND SETTLE MATTERS WITH AGREEMENTS.


More useless platitudes...what should we do, just lie down, give up and let our enemies triumph over us without a fight? That has never been our way. Failed against terrorism? Have we had another attack on our homeland other than that lone jackass in Ft. Hood?...NO! Bush's war on terror worked and Obama is seeing that it is necessary to continue the march.


How many of our soldiers died in terrorist attacks in Iraq? A country that had never attacked us nor had a terrorist attack within it's borders in it's entire history? Do they not count? There was no justification to send those 4000+ soldiers to their deaths.

Our own intellegence services have said that al-Qaeda has regrouped and is just as functional and dangerous as it was pre-9/11. We have created more, not less terrorist with our brazen, idiotic foreign policy and needless wars, Afghanistan included. How on earth is our war in Afghanistan or Iraq protecting us from terrorism here? There is no way you could possibly make a case that those occupations are protecting us here.

It is this kind of non-thinking, patriotic hogwash, ("what should we do, just lie down, give up and let our enemies triumph over us without a fight? That has never been our way.") That allows our leaders to squander our wealth and ruin more generations of soldiers lives.

Shame on you and shame on Billy Bones for glorifying war and acting as if it is some wonderful tool that the US uses to fight evil in the world. Hogwash, nonsense and idiocy at it's finest!


Billy and I don't glorify it since we know it by experience...do you? More useless, liberal platitudes not based on much real, hands on experience. We all, I hope, love our country and we can disagree on what needs to be done but some of us have already given our share. Maybe it is your turn, or would you rather just run away or bury your head in the sand of pseudo-intellectual garbage?


As history shows, we need even more agreements, more treaties, not war. Look how far and how well that approach has worked in the past with Pol Pot, Iran, Hitler, Saddam, Mao, Stalin, and a host of other tyrants. I suggest that If those agreements had included more detail, with the proper words and emphases then War could have been avoided. NAAAHHHH.


Just because you served doesn't give you more of an insight or say into what is right or wrong. Just because you served in some other old, needless war that was lost long ago doesn't give you more of an insight into what is going on in today's world. I think it is you that needs to pull your head out of the sand and really ask yourself excaclty what has been accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lay it out here for all of us to see since you seem to know so much more than the rest of us.

Calling me pseudo-intellectual only goes to show your lack of thought and inability to express yourself. Fear is usually wrapped up in ignorance, and you really aren't shy in displaying your not so pseudo-ignorance here.


To Billy and Wemoan:

My father and father-in-law saw it first hand in the war against Nazism and Fascism. They would agree with the "liberal platitudes." Most intelligent, reasonable veterans don't want their children, grand-children or great-grandchildren to have to go through the Hell of war. Fortunately, most of us teach our children to solve problems with words, not weapons.


Notice how much Iran's wonderful leaders are listening to the impotent protests made by the U.N.; these people understand the very force that we are reluctant to use. The only time the U.N. has had any teeth is when WE did the fighting for them and now the U.N. has become more of a sounding board for our enemies to attack and demean us on our own soil. A man like Hugo Chavez should be stuffed down the bore of a huge cannon and fired back toward Venezuela; that would wake them up and the world would be rid of yet one more diseased parasite. Yeah, MissTrust, is agree, we really need more protests, agreements, treaties....NAAAAH.


"Person" - NONE of us WANT anybody's kids to have to deal with the horror that is warfare...unfortunately, with men like Iran's leaders and Kim il Jung in North Korea it is commonly the only answer if you don't want to live on your knees. Now you're going to say they aren't any threat? Ask our greatest ally in the Mideast, Israel, about that. In Iran they have big signs in their mosques that say "death to Israel".


wemoan, again you show your stupidity. We recently saw in Iran the huge protests and grass roots movement that is mobilizing against the regime in Iran. With time and support, that peaceful democratic movement will win. If we were to bomb or invade Iran, we would destroy that movement and all hope of a peaceful, democratic uprising in that country would be lost.

Same thing in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader who has won multiple elections with a wide margin of victory. He tried to expand his power with a referendum and that was shot down. The democratic process there was successful. He has done a lot to help the poor of not only his country, but of his entire continent. If we were to kill him, or to wage war against that country, what possbile good could come of that?

You need to break free from such simplistic, old-world thinking. You cannot make peace through war. You can not coerce people into choosing a democratic system through force. The only time war should ever be waged is if we are attacked. War is for self-defense, not to force your will on those that are weaker than you.

That is what fasicists like Hitler do.


Have you ever noticed that the more force full you are the more you win. Consider Obama, Consider Pelosi, Consider Reid, Consider Boxer, Eshoo, and our Governator. Chicago style politics wins, undercut the opposition, Offer BI-Partisan, But Slam down their response, Destroy and Intimidate the opposition, Take NO Prisoners,

Force wins,

Platitudes, and wishy washy, mamby pamby approaches suck, so consider this...probably...

WAR IS THE ANSWER.


As I sip my latte, I often wonder what the people in China and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are doing? I wonder if they are afraid to do what I am doing, now, just freely typing my thoughts, with no worry of state monitoring or retribution. (other than Clay...)

Oh well, maybe I need to stop this line of musing, before my ISP and TCP/IP is traced.


"Really" - you can disagree with me but don't be calling me stupid just because we don't agree. I do believe that the opposition in Iran is a very positive thing - Iran was once our great friend and the Iranians are very often friendly to us...but their leaders, who, by the way, have the people suppressed by FORCE (just like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq) and will do what they want to Israel and to us. Chavez is a communist who hates this country and our way of life; he was even demeaning to Obama who is more like him than many of us.

Person - I want to give you credit for disagreeing but not trying to be insulting, rude or burlesque. This is much better. Mazeltov


Please mind your manners on Talkabout. Please don't call each other stupid. Please don't insinuate your neighbors are Hitler-like.

I suspect you all agree more than you disagree on these things... It's just not as much fun to do so apparently. Anyway, please mind your manners.


Yessir,

I promise not to use the term Hitler, or stupid. But I am seeking to find fun filled things to do on a gray wintry day at my keyboard.

Toodle, Doo. (and I do mean Doo, is that OK?)


"Chavez is a communist who hates this country and our way of life; he was even demeaning to Obama who is more like him than many of us."

Doesn't even come close to justifying war.

"Iran was once our great friend and the Iranians are very often friendly to us...but their leaders, who, by the way, have the people suppressed by FORCE (just like the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq) and will do what they want to Israel and to us."

Also doesn't even come close to justifying war. If they were going to do something, they would have done it by now. Do you really think they would risk being anialated by attacking either Isreal or the United States? Why do the right-wingers live in such a state of fear?

There, was that better? It is hard to be nice and not call people names when they things pouring out from their fingers is so . . . silly.


Realize that the United Nations and agencies like them can participate in world order. Right now we have to stop participating in war and start spending our time at home on our economy. The death and maiming has to end.


War is NOT the answer when the question is "What's the best way to get grass stains out of a white shirt?"


Society needs to get it that war is not an answer. I have friends from Vietnam, Japan and the Congo. It's wierd to think that we fought the Japanese and had internment camps. When are we going to learn? Of course, I am against torture and rape. We should have a world consciousness fighting atrocities.


Really?

Would you mind providing the criterion which you maintain are the only criterion which justify WAR?

Before responding, please no blather, qualifications, histrionics, segues, extrapolations, I am respectfully requesting a very simple response.


Our country is invaded by another country or attacked by another country's army.


We're All Alright,

I am not seeking when WAR is NOT the answer, but when WAR IS the ANSWER. Any answers?


Or one of the countries that we have treaties with is attacked or invaded by another country's army and we have a legal responsibility to defend them.


How few of you show the respect and honor due such military heroes as "Wemoan" and "Billy Bones". Time after time they will tell you that their vast military experience is the only thing that keeps you safe from the Communist menace and you do not acknowledge them. They know that the only answer is to bomb and kill people and you will not listen. We have only been at these last escapades for the last 8 years and probably no more that 500,000 people have been killed. You got to give war a chance. If you grandchildren are fighting in the middle east in 20 years or so, it might be time to think of some other policy. Until then, Be American, Kill People


The 100,000 troops deployed in the Iraq/afganistan war also have families who are silent heros. Figure a quater of a millian US citizens (which include families) are subjected to this horror being played out day and night. Now Obama is escalating the war. He is at the same time destroying the economy and trying to mess up health care. I am so sorry for the youth of our nation who have to pay the price of this ignorance.


The economy, health care and our current occupations are not the fault of Obama. Escalating the war in Afghanistan is a huge mistake, however. The economy was broken by Bush and the health care system has been broken for decades. Ignorance is a funny word to be thrown around by someone who obviously doesn't understand the problems we face as a nation.


RC the rules are not to disparage others' points.


As much as I disagree with Billy Bones, he fought in Vietnam so that you and I can blog about things. That makes him a hero in my book.

Thanks for your service Billy Bones. I am sure you know I want to rip into your post but I'll let Boney Bill have at you and wemoan on this one.


RC,

At what point will Obama take ownership of the Presidency and quit blaming bush? I do not ever recall bush blaming Clinton for missing osama bin laden on 3 occasions. move on. Tonight I think obama took ownership of Afghanistan at the absolute minimum of 30,000 soldiers, the minimum number and HIGH risk option from McChrystal. I carefully listened and do not understand Obama's mission---- 1- 15months of afghan capacity with nato, 2--more effective civilians, 3--link with pakistani (who bombed mumbai 13 months ago)

Yee Gods, Is this ON the JOB Training.


Obama is not blaming Bush, he's too classy for that, but I certainly am. He is making a huge mistake. Not the first, nor the last.

skygizmo: How, exactly, did Billy Bones fighting in Vietnam enable or protect my right to express myself here? That patriotic drivel is repulsive and insulting.


"As much as I disagree with Billy Bones, he fought in Vietnam so that you and I can blog about things."

Blind patriotism at its worst. There was nothing going on in Viet Nam that was a threat to the U.S. Nothing happened that makes us freer now in the U.S. Much happened to make us a worse country, in terms of massive unnecessary loss of life and long-time ruination of life for both military and civilian survivors, contributing to changing the U.S. from the world's biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation, uniting China and the Soviet Union against the U.S. in support of North Viet Nam (they were otherwise estranged from one another at the time), stimulating generational and class disagreements in the U.S., losing the trust of allies and increasing the distance from countries opposed to U.S. military adventurism and economic hegemony, etc.

The country finally got out of there when even housewives in Iowa who had sent family members to war realized all this, realized that the war in Viet Nam was a political/special interest game and not in teh best interest of the people of the U.S. There was no honor possible, no protection of our national interests, and no heroism in the sense of doing something heroic for the country. (Even in unnecessary wars, there can be individual acts of heroism, just as there are individual acts of viciousness and terrorism. But one does not need war to see the same kinds of behavior.) With the public no longer falling for the patriotic con and the lies about what was going on (the media in those days was much more at liberty to report the facts of war and did not have to be "embedded" in military-controlled situations, there was, at long last, no way politicians could maintain the ugly charade.

Beyond those who died, many Viet Nam vets who took part, sometimes willingly and often not, remain screwed up to this day. As a group, they have much higher rates of PTSD, substance abuse, homelessness, divorce, suicide, various forms of mental disorders, disabilities from injuries, and many other difficulties. They are aging and increasingly forgotten by a population mostly born after the war ended or who were too young to be aware at the time. It is never wrong to give them a thought now and then and even to reach out by volunteering with organizations trying to help or donating to such appropriate causes involved with trying to provide aid. Their lives were forever screwed up by the country's leaders of the time and all who stupidly--yes, stupidly--supported that war without having to go fight it themselves.


RC,

My assumption is that Billy Bones was a young man when he served in Vietnam. Being a young man, he was probably as idealistic as you and I were when we were young. He may are may not have understood the rational for the war. I disagree with the reasons we fought there but I bet Billy Bones was just doing his duty and was only there because he loved his country. He didn't run and he didn't hide. I was only speaking to what I figure where his motivations for putting his life on the line.

I know a kid named Matt, that used to come into my shop. He grew to be a man. His father is a successful surgeon. Matt was smart and articulate at the age of 14 when he was coming in the store. The kid didn't need any of the benefits that a soldier receives for serving you and me. Money and connections are not an issue in his family. Yet Matt has done two tours in Iraq and has earned a Purple Heart.

My guess is that you and I agree that the Iraq war was a horrible policy decision. Still I admire the young men and women who volunteer to serve.

I hope to run into Matt someday. When I do, I am going to tell him how proud I am of him and thank him for his service. Hopefully, some fool isn't so repulsed by my gratitude or Matt's bravery that they feel the need to point out that Matt's motivations for making the sacrifices he has made are nothing but patriotic drivel.

If that happens, I'll be on my way to jail and some fool would be on the way to the hospital. That is unless the fool is rescued by Matt. Which is likely what would happen. Matt being the kind of man that he turned out to be.


At the very beginning, you missed one, Billy! Islamofacism. Because it is written in the stars.


War IS the answer when the question is, "Who performed the classic 70's song Low Rider?"

No disrespect to any veterans here. It's just that it's a really kick ass song.


Now Pitching,

I could try to explain why your anger filled post is embarrassment to all left of center Americans but why would one put much stock in what some guy says about Vietnam when he spells it Viet Nam.

Obviously, Now pitching has studied and thought about the Vietnam more than even Billy Bones. And that, Now Pitching, was sarcasm.


War!!!

Web Link


Take it easy, skizzy. Obviously NP has rattled your cage. Just chill.


Thus the third post. Nothing like a little War to chill out!

skizzy? good one!

Web Link

Here's another for the Hispanic Hero's who have served America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Web Link


"I could try to explain why your anger filled post is embarrassment to all left of center Americans but why would one put much stock in what some guy says about Vietnam when he spells it Viet Nam.

"Obviously, Now pitching has studied and thought about the Vietnam more than even Billy Bones. And that, Now Pitching, was sarcasm."

Why are you so stupid as to assume I am "left of center"? Why don't you know how Viet Nam was spelled by most during the U.S. involvement there? Do you even know that a much older spelling for the area was "Nam Viet"? That the one-word name now generally used is a westernized version that came into use during the course of the U.S. involvement there, as were many other multi-word place names there combined into single words? How do you know my statements are the result of study and thought and not more direct experience?

I don't know how old you are, but you come off as wet behind the ears. Do note that I mentioned most are like you due to the time elapsed since the U.S. involvement there. Secondarily, education on this national shame is poorly covered in textbooks, and we all know how reliable any mention of such fading events is in most of today's dumbed-down information from corporate media. It's not entirely your fault that you are naive, gullible, and foolish enough to claim Billy was doing something for his country over there. There is a big gap between being patriotically carried away and sincerely imagining you are doing something for your country and actually engaging in something that verifiably does something for your country.


"Here's another for the Hispanic Hero's who have served America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Web Link"

So, does this mean you think all Hispanic heroes (yes, that is the plural spelling for "hero" when the word refers to people and not a sandwich--in no case does the plural have an apostrophe) are male and that none of them are females in the military being wasted in those places? Or are you assuming, with this link, that the female heroes are all lesbians and that none of the male heroes are gay? Please be clear so we can learn more fully from your self-important messages.


NP,

I have never seen you so rattled. Get a Grip. A few you tube vids are just that, simple videos. WAR, on the other hand is another piece of cake.

FYI, Viet Nam was not our most recent war. Today, we may have the most abundant group of active vets in our history since WWII.

So, Is WAR the answer?


"I can only hope and prey."

Ah, dear retiring one, your predatory nature has never been in doubt.


Am I only getting the responses and the taunts are deleted?


Miss Trust,

Actually, I think I had it coming. It turns out that the Now Pitching is right about a few things in his post.

I checked out his contention about the spelling his spelling of Viet Nam. He is totally right on that one. took less than 30 seconds to Google up that one. Got me there.

I did mess up my word choice and punctuation and spelling of the word Heroes. I had that one coming for messing up the Viet Nam quip.

a cheap shot and bad form on my part.

And unfortunately I deserve the lesbian crack about the video I posted too. I tried to find a Spanish version of Low Rider and the best I could do was ZZ Top. I know Now Pitching think I am naive but I have been to two ZZ Top concerts. They always feature Hot Rods and Women dressed for sex.

I made an assumption that his opposition to the Viet Nam and Iraq wars, which I share, indicated that his politics were left of center. That is a stupid assumption of course as there are plenty of folks whose politics are definitely to the right of center who view those wars as tragic mistakes.

Now Pitching,

If it is your opinion that the motivations of the men and women who serve in our military are the same as the policy objectives of what ever administration is currently running our government, then I guess it will be OK if you want to tell some young woman or man, or even old men and women, how their service and sacrifice were nothing more than blind patriotism and anybody who says different is spouting insulting drivel.

Personally, I have always been a bit put off by folks who contend that any opposition to a war is traitorous and shows a lack of support for the troops. Just as I am put off by folks that contend honoring and thanking women and men for their military service implies support for the policies that put them in harms way.

I did a poor job of posting on this one. Got to hand it to you, Now Pitching, nice job. And thanks for setting me straight on heroes.

Sorry Hispanic Veterans. I didn't mean to imply I was posting a link to a Subway in Baghdad!


You know, giz, I'm disarmed by your last message. But no matter what you say, I won't be seen holding hands in public with you.

You seem to like to mess around with ideas. Here's one that is totally unresolved these days. How do you honor the sincere willingness of some people in the military to defend their country (which includes all of us in the country or who are citizens of the country) without supporting them in politician-dictated activities that have no connection to actual national defense? Put another way, how does one support the troops without supporting what they are doing as part of unnecessary U.S. military aggression? It is too easy to go with the bumper sticker "Support our troops--bring them home now."

You might find the career of Republican (until recently) Pete McCloskey interesting. As a young officer, he led more bayonet charges than anyone else on the battlefields of Korea during that war. Something of a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. Yet he was reviled by war-loving hardliners for speaking fact-based truth on such conflicts as the war in Viet Nam (and now that we have recognition of the etymology, you can call it Vietnam for all I care) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A documentary on his life that recently aired on public television will give you an introduction to someone with real integrity, whether or not he is always right. Digging deeper into his career will show a warrior on many fronts who was not all that crazy about going to war.


If one criticizes soldiers for orders they are forced to carry out, one must claim they had a choice in the matter. Here is part of the take of former marine officer Camillo Bica on this matter:

"I have argued that the act of fighting in an unjust war is illegal and immoral. I caution the reader, however, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past (a mistake, I fear, that is again gaining acceptance among a frustrated activist community) of moving from the illegality of the war to the criminality of the warriors. There is a profound moral and legal difference between condemning the act and blaming the actor. Determining moral and legal culpability is a complex process that goes well beyond a determination that the war is unjust. It must involve as well an evaluation of individual motivation, intention, whether the soldier has the information necessary to make such profound moral judgments, and, as stated in the Nuremberg Principles, whether "... a moral choice was in fact possible to him." While we admire and praise those who are capable of making such judgments and possess the moral courage to act in accordance with the dictates of their consciences, given the severity of the legal and social sanctions the soldier must suffer, it is not at all certain whether refusing to fight under the threat of such sanctions is obligatory or supererogatory - "above and beyond" what we can morally require a person to do. What is even less warranted is to blame the warrior for the war as though his not refusing to fight is the cause and the reason the war continues. Rather, we must understand that ultimately the responsibility and blame is with those who manipulate, deceive and use war as a means of acquiring wealth or power. We must understand that in a democracy all citizens bear responsibility for the actions of their government, and that there is blood on all our hands. We must understand that rather than to condemn and vilify the soldiers, we must educate and help them comprehend the true moral and legal nature of war. Most importantly, we must strive to create an environment in which adolescents and young adults feel empowered to act upon their moral convictions and refuse to fight. Finally, we must ensure that refusers and deserters are supported and provided protection either through SCO [selective conscientious objection] laws, legal defense funds, or, more drastically, by providing sanctuaries from military apprehension and prosecution."


Hi Now Pitching,

"How do you honor the sincere willingness of some people in the military to defend their country (which includes all of us in the country or who are citizens of the country) without supporting them in politician-dictated activities that have no connection to actual national defense? Put another way, how does one support the troops without supporting what they are doing as part of unnecessary U.S. military aggression? It is too easy to go with the bumper sticker "Support our troops--bring them home now."

I wish I had put it that way. That sums up what I was getting at. Respecting a soldiers service is separate from agreeing with the mission. Many folks, on all sides, seem to have a problem separating the concepts.

When I read this sarcastic quote,

"How few of you show the respect and honor due such military heroes as "Wemoan" and "Billy Bones"."

The part of me that admires Americans such as wemoan and Billy Bones for their service reacted in anger. I should have been more thoughtful. Billy Bones and wemoan have mocked many of my positions in this forum. As have I mocked many of theirs. But in the end, these men chose to do what they saw as their duty. I respect and thank them and view them as heroes for their service. If others choose to ignore their service or even hold it against them for serving, not much I can, or should even try to do to change that.

As "just far enough left of center as to be right" as I am, I have no problem with your not wanting to hold my hand!


The word "heroes" has come to mean anybody. The old notion that it designates someone exceptional or distinguished among peers is out the window. This does not mean that wemoan and Billy the Boner were not true old-fashioned heroes at one time or in some context, but we certainly don't have any evidence of that here on TalkAbout.

Do we know that their supposed military service was voluntary? A goodly number of us back in those ancient days were drafted. Don't ever thank me for my willingness to serve because I wasn't in the Army willingly. I like to think I would have enlisted if there was an actual outside threat to my home and loved ones that I could have helped to defeat, but that hasn't come up since I was a toddler.


Nipper: I am pleasantly surprised to read that you actually served; most of us didn't go eagerly but it was our duty as we saw it. That is, I believe, the case with most of those who serve.


I am very impressed with the quality of the dialog on Talkabout. "We" need to do this more often. Sincere apologies for mistakes, with civility and references, and the reader gets an education at the same time in the process of discourse as well as on important matters.

Good Job Now Pitching, skygizmo and wemoan. Thank you. I may have to change my name to More Trust.


>>Obama is not blaming Bush, he's too classy for that<<

Good Grief! Don't you pay any attention at all. Didn't you hear his speech last night?


The credulity, the ignorance, the blindness expressed here is scarey and it is sad.

There has always been war. There will always be war. War cannot be avoided any more than love and hate can be avoided.

WAR IS GENETIC. War is us. Like it or not. That cannot be changed and never will be changed short of eugenics.

Does that mean people should go looking for war? of course not. It means people will war.

.


That is a terrible, defeatist attitude. It let's you off the hook for having to care what your government does in your name. It allows you to turn your back on the horrors of war and ignore what is right and just.


>>I like to think I would have enlisted if there was an actual outside threat to my home and loved ones that I could have helped to defeat, but that hasn't come up since I was a toddler.<<

That threat is here and now. Vietnam didn't pose such a threat, nor Korea befor it, nor Grenada after it. But the threat is here and now. Argue if you will over why it is a threat, or if America brought it on itself - but know - there IS an actual outside threat to your home and loved ones here and now.


Really?

It might be helpful for you to approach people in the countries being decimated by war like Darfur or Afghanistan with your advice. I am very proud of America in our attempts to stop and/or end wars, but I have many regrets about some wars, especially Viet Nam. Desert Storm was well conducted and I have no regrets on that war. A super clear mission, No nation building, stop Iraqi aggression in the region with a true coalition of nations, end mission and leave. OIF, Operation Iraqi Freedom, in my opinion, did have a basis to enter the conflict with near unanimity among our congress and the UN on weapons of mass destruction, BUT had no clear mission or end game. Finding no WMD does not bother me so much because it was part of Saddam's strategy to purposely act as though he did. Sort of like bluffing in poker.


I don't buy Misanthropes assertion that there is a real threat presented to our country that justifies the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Terrorism is a trumped up fear that is not as looming as the warmongers would have you believe. Did 9/11 justify the invation of Afghanistan? No.

I don't think that we need to invade and occupy every country that doesn't govern, or has a war that we don't agree with. We might as well invade the Congo, Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or a plethora of other countries that have problems. Where does that line of reasoning end.


>>That is a terrible, defeatist attitude. It let's you off the hook for having to care what your government does in your name. It allows you to turn your back on the horrors of war and ignore what is right and just.<<

Nope. It isn't an attitude at all - it is reality. It doesen't let me off of any hooks. I care what my government does - although, my government does nothing in my name. My government pays no attention to me or to what I care about. It doesn't allow me to turn my back on the horrors of war, and I do not do so. I do try to keep in touch with reality. War is an everlasting reality that will always be with us. Always has always been with us - always will be with us. Of course war should be avoided when it can be avoided. It should be won when it can't be avoided.


>>I don't buy Misanthropes assertion that there is a real threat presented to our country that justifies the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. <<

Did I assert that? I looked at my post and couldn't find it.

I wish you people would pay attention.

.


"That threat is here and now. Vietnam didn't pose such a threat, nor Korea befor it, nor Grenada after it. But the threat is here and now. Argue if you will over why it is a threat, or if America brought it on itself - but know - there IS an actual outside threat to your home and loved ones here and now."

What threat are you talking about? If the threat is here, then what should we enlist to fight? Where will we be sent as a front line and how will we defeat that threat?


"Loyalty to the country, always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain


Hello Really?

Under what circumstances do you feel that violence (war) is justified, say, in response to damage or death to your family?, to your property?, to national resources?, to elected officials? to our servicemen and women? to a united United Nations call for action?


The use of war or violence only as a last resort, for self defense only, is justified. Your family or yourself is in obvious mortal danger, your country is being invaded or attacked. Stuff like that. Pretty much the standard for waging war through WWII.

Pre-emptive war is a war crime.


war is a dyslexic's tartare!


>>What threat are you talking about? If the threat is here, then what should we enlist to fight? Where will we be sent as a front line and how will we defeat that threat?<<

Would you like me to explain the meaning of life as an aside?


If that tickles your fancy. Otherwise, I think my questions were pretty straight forward.


Misanthrope said "Argue if you will over why it is a threat, or if America brought it on itself - but know - there IS an actual outside threat to your home and loved ones here and now."

I agree with Misanthrope.

If "Really?" does not, then do we need to re-chronicle 30 years of trans-national Islamic terrorism, case by case, ever more encroachiong on our national security to try and convince "Really?"

An aside, a true story---I love to talk and learn from others, and one close friend told me that they were amazed at the American reaction to 911, and I asked why, and the friend said "Well, on 911 those were your own planes" I saw no need for further dialog.

So, is that where we are on this topic, "Really?"


Our leaders jump at the chance to go to war, though many never partook (see: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld). John Lennon fought for peace, and ended up getting shot. What a stupid, stupid world.


"The primary cause of THIS, was a series of trade restrictions introduced by Britain to impede American trade with France..."

do-do-do-do, do-do-do, do-do-do-do...buzz

"What is the War of 1812, Alex"

CORRECT!

Sometimes, war actually IS the answer after all. Huh


"John Lennon FOUGHT(my emphasis) for peace, and ended up getting shot."

Fight for peace......hmmmmmm.


What happened to Really? It's been 18 hrs...


"Here we go with another war

But I will not sweat it

I'm not getting in line"


>>I like to think I would have enlisted if there was an actual outside threat to my home and loved ones that I could have helped to defeat, but that hasn't come up since I was a toddler.<<

"That threat is here and now. Vietnam didn't pose such a threat, nor Korea befor it, nor Grenada after it. But the threat is here and now. Argue if you will over why it is a threat, or if America brought it on itself - but know - there IS an actual outside threat to your home and loved ones here and now."

Pure baloney. There is always a "background" of danger to everyone. But this is no greater in the U.S. at this time or from the fringe Islamic radicals than at any other time. Do the numbers. Look at actual information and not just propaganda from people who benefit by keeping you hyped up and afraid. The people doing the hyping are more of a threat than the few terrorists they hype because they try to involve our entire country in foreign wars based of the imagined threats, stir up whole nations and cultures against us, and send tens and hundreds of thousands of our military people off to do battle and be exposed to danger in countries that have nothing to do with actual threats to our well being. The vast majority of muslims are not militant Islamic radicals, and the vast majority of Islamic radicals are not terrorists who attack outside their own country.

Other countries have much more to be afraid of from U.S. terrorism (use of violence or threat of violence to intimidate and have one's way over another) than we have over terrorists who come here from elsewhere. If you dig into the record of the past hundred years, and you don't have to dig far for the wars the U.S. has started in the Middle East recently, you will find our CIA and others have actually helped to make groups like Al Qaeda more significant. It paints a picture in which the anti-U.S. terrorists need the U.S. for support and to fill the role of bogeyman in their rallying cries as much as our political button pushers need them to stir up massive, unthinking, patriotic support among Americans for wars that boost the power of politicians and/or benefit the "military-industrial complex" that owns them.


NP,

Your disdain for concerns and dangers is telling. You say "But this is no greater in the U.S. at this time or from the fringe Islamic radicals than at any other time. " Data, please. I believe that the data of terrorist activities worldwide, especially "from the fringe Islamic radicals" for the past 20 years is escalating and not dissipating.

Data, please.


Hey Billy Bones,

I was about to comment, and I noticed that you lobbed a grenade on this blog, and have never commented since. So, before I say anything, do you have any thong to say?


Miss Trust -you are wondering how the infamous and much maligned NP knows so much about the workings of the Islamic radicals; he is probably their mouthpiece in this area. He seems to hate everything about this country fully as much as they do. Well, if they succeed in taking over, the NP will be required to wear a burqua when he goes up to the city for his wild Saturday nights; it may cramp his style down on the Castro. Oh well, seeing the world through that mesh will be good preparation for when he is behind bars for his seditious behavior. Yes, NP, you are being watched!


Interesting that people cannot provide any specifics or conditions or events that warrant war, but are able to provide reams and books of data and reasons why "War is not the answer"


If it took 14 resolutions by the UN, and a vote from our congress to enter Iraq, what additional reasons are necessary and sufficient to start a war? Do I need to bring up the you tube of all the proclamations by all parties prior to war?


>>The people doing the hyping are more of a threat than the few terrorists they hype because they try to involve our entire country in foreign wars based of the imagined threats, stir up whole nations and cultures against us, and send tens and hundreds of thousands of our military people off to do battle and be exposed to danger in countries that have nothing to do with actual threats to our well being.<<

If all of that were true (and some of it is) it wouldn't change the fact that the U.S. is at war - a war it did not start and which has resulted in the deaths of innocent Americans and will do so. The fact that it hasn't yet reached physically and violently into your sphere does not mean that it won't. More Americans will be killed by Islamic terrorists. Maybe millions. It is folly to ignore the threat. The very real threat. They have told us again and again that they will kill us. They tell us so literally - not figuratively.

>>The vast majority of muslims are not militant Islamic radicals, and the vast majority of Islamic radicals are not terrorists who attack outside their own country. <<

And the vast majority of Americans are innocent people who never hurt anybody - but thousands of us were killed just for being Americans. Statements like that quoted are meaningless drivel - smokescreens - efforts to shift the emphasis of a conversation threatening to reveal that which the speaker wishes to conceal.


We are not at war. We are occupying two nations.


RC,

Tell that to the Marines.


The Marines know they are an occupying force. They know they are better at killing than peace keeping. I don't need to tell them anything, because they already are living the reality of occupation.


We are at war. War has been declared against us and is being pursued against us - abroad and at home. We are occupying two nations.


A bunch of rag-tag wannabe jihadists have declared war, but they have no ability to threaten the strongest nation on earth. Only the cowards are afraid and overreact by committing our troops to a pointless endeavor. Just more misdirection from the powers that be to fool the weak-minded into more funding for the war machine.


"If all of that were true (and some of it is) it wouldn't change the fact that the U.S. is at war - a war it did not start..."

Start off with an absurdly false premise, and everything you say collapses after that.

By the way, folks, not only Americans died on 9/11. People from dozens of different countries died in the WTC. Their presence there was part of the reason the terrorists chose the place as a target--greater global attention to the incident. When you are a few people trying to get whole societies to cave in to your wishes, maximum publicity for your actions and demands is important.


Ah, NP, you appear to be good at expounding until someone points out that it is all blather.

Your observation that terrorists chose their target to get maximum worldwide publicity is silly. They chose the Trade Centers to kill the most Americans with the least wherewithall, and to strike a symbol of America. The killing of some foreigners was a plus, the killing of others a minus.

What did America do to you? Gave you a good life that one with your ungrateful bent probably could not have had elsewhere, yes, but what did America do to you to press you to demean it so relentlessly? Is there nothing about America you admire or even appreciate? Here, you minimize and marginalize the deaths of thousands of Americans that died at the hands of the terrorists that you pooh-pooh and stop just short of admiring. Why?


Why aren't college students marching against war like many did against Vietnam.


"Your observation that terrorists chose their target to get maximum worldwide publicity is silly. They chose the Trade Centers to kill the most Americans with the least wherewithall, and to strike a symbol of America. The killing of some foreigners was a plus, the killing of others a minus."

I suppose the only remaining question is "What kind of soap was used on your brainwash"? Your failure to recognize the symbolic nature of the World Trade Center shows you have a lot of learning to cover concerning the terrorists involved.


Just a gentle reminder to everyone that 911 was not just an attack on WTC-- the hub of Wall Street, but also the Pentagon---the hub of our military, and also Washington DC,---the hub of our government. These 911 attacks were carefully planned for a long time with a strategy to paralyze our nation. Some estimates of the damage from 911 were $ 1 Trillion dollars. In addition, I do not know if we will ever fully resolve the role and mission of the anthrax threat during the same time frame. To dismiss or ignore these continuing real threats is sheer folly.


Vet - You're wasting your time trying to reason with the infamous and nefarious NP. He is one of the enemy; he probably is taking flight training right now in preparation for another "justified" attack on our country...if yhou read his postings, he attacks our country constantly.


"These 911 attacks were carefully planned for a long time with a strategy to paralyze our nation."

The only thing that paralyzed the nation and cost it so much was the Bush administration's long-awaited and self-serving immediate reaction to the attacks and the unnecessary military adventures and domestic programs instituted. See PNAC. Not surprisingly, they had people like Vet rolling over for anything they ran up the flagpole. But there were also huge numbers of veterans who questioned the oblique reaction, some of them profoundly disturbed by the events of the time and the unnecessary wars and collateral killing of innocents started in the name of what a few dozen terriorists did.


wemoan,

Thanks for the warning. We have all met scores of NPs. I am not wasting my time in this process. 'NPs" need to be confronted for the thugs they are. The NPs of the world simply want to shut down real discussion through banal taunts, that is the only control they will ever have -- sowing anarchy and dissension to stop progress. A talkabout thread is a perfectly simple lure to expose them to sunlight.


NP is a day walker. Sunlight has no effect on that type.


"NP is a day walker. Sunlight has no effect on that type."

Perhaps a stake through the heart? The final solution to the NP problem is to "pith" him off...like a red-legged frog.


Nature lover - is he edible? That is probably the best use we could find for him. I can see it now, NP...breaded and deep fried, served with some nice Thai peanut sauce and rice.


The jealousy of NP is ripe here. No one can come close to debating him, so they result to these namby-pamby attempted insults, which really just make the posters come off sounding dumb.


Look again, What----. Look a bit more carefully and you will see that NP will not engage in debate. As soon as anyone points out his foolishness he resorts to the namby-pamby attempted insults you seem to see in the posts of others. What I don't understand is why. Why is he so spiteful and venomous toward a nation that has given him so much? I asked. He won't answer. He won't point to one thing about America that he admires or even appreciates. He is choking on bile. This is a free country (for now) and he is entitled to his opinions no matter how malignant. The freedom is his birthright. He is not entitled, however, to a free ride - hateful harangues without being faced with the repugnance of his malice.


"What I see" - you are obviously blind; nobody is jealous of a person who is so universally scorned. He (or YOU, because I don't doubt that you are, yourself, NP) is nobody for which anybody could possible harbor jealousy or envy. Misanthrope hit the nail right on the head and the NP deserves all of that and more.


"This is a free country (for now) and he is entitled to his opinions no matter how malignant."

What is the "(for now)" supposed to mean? That one caveat takes an otherwise okay post and turns it into garbage.


Parsing commentary is moot blather. Time is short, speak your piece. Here is "my score"-- Misanthrope did fine, as did skygizmo and Vet--and WIS and nl are parsing. imho. NP is an anarchist.


Billy Bones scores 101 posts. He never said anything original. His topic? Cliche.

Still, 101 posts. The man is a legend.


skygizmo,

yes, 101 posts by BB, and nary a response. Lob a grenade and run.

Kinda like an IED. The NEW kinda WAR... similar to trans-nationals with no allegiance to country, principles, religion, or law.

I think I could like Billy, but this new trans-national paradigm, needs a re-calibration for an old vet like me. I think I like where Billy is coming from, I just don't know where he is going, because he does not offer a second point to extrapolate from---

Like the Somali pirates, who launch from a failed government state, starting at piracy 100 miles from their coast, to 300 miles to 600 miles to 900 miles, and now to 1100 miles and stopping all forms of shipping in THE most vital shipping lane in the world. What is the upside of allowing that behavior to perpetuate?


"What is the upside of allowing that behavior to perpetuate?"

It serves as a cheap reminder that we all should very frightened and to do as we are told.


dissection of quote--

What---Somali pirates attacking world shipping

is the upside--- Could be positive about pirates attacking

of allowing---permitting to continue or expanding or killing

that behavior---stopping commerce, taking prisoners, asking ransom...

to perpetuate--- to continue, escalate, enlarge..

How can one effectively communicate a very simple wrong of piracy without blow-back, or mis-interpretation-- it is not easy.


And another terrorist convicted hours ago. A pretty good summary on BBC. Web Link


Thank you Vet. I don't know why or what is to be gained by refusing to recognize the obvious reality of the war.


What reality? That it sucks and is being used more and more as a first choice rather than last choice? That in this culture we glorify it and the realities are hidden from the society at large? Our country is addicted to war, to the industries that support it and the policies that perpetuate it. Our addiction to war and conflict is killing the sould of this once great nation.


"Reality" - when were we great or not great? Revolutionary War - 1776, War of 1812-1812, Mexican War - 1844, Civil War - 1865, Spanish American War - 1898, First World War - we entered 1917, Second World War - we entered 1941, Korean War - 1950, Vietnam - 1965 (big buildup, present before), Desert Storm - Second Iraq War, Afghanistan - contemporary...we have always had war and always with a reason, whether you like it or not. When were we greater or less great than we are now.


Our greatness has been on the decline ever since we somehow decided that we can dominate the world and force our will on others. Here's an incomplete list, but just gives you a small idea of our arrogant intervention into other countries soverign affairs. Your list, wemoan, is woefully incomplete!

1957-1973

Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

1959

Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1961

The Bay of Pigs — The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA’s first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

Ecuador — The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire) — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba’s politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963

Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964

Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America’s first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco’s political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965

Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

Greece — With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo (Zaire) — A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

1966

The Ramparts Affair — The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students’ Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

1967

Greece — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" — backed by the CIA — will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."

Operation PHEONIX — The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."

1968

Operation CHAOS — The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

Bolivia — A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969

Uruguay — The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis’. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

1970

Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

1971

Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti — "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972

The Case-Zablocki Act — Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

Cambodia — Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

Wagergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973

Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations — William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

Watergate Scandal — The CIA’s main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon’s crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA’s many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired — President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

1974

CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate — The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon’s Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act — Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975

Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" — Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

"Inside the Company" — Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing — Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA’s accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission — In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission’s namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission’s eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979

Iran — The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

El Salvador — An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" — the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

1980

El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981

Iran/Contra Begins — The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ‘uncle.’" The CIA’s Freedom Fighter’s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983

Honduras — The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984

The Boland Amendment — The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA’s informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986

Eugene Hasenfus — Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan’s claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal — Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media’s attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989

Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

1990

Haiti — Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide’s return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991

The Gulf War — The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein’s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism — in Kuwait, for example.

The Fall of the Soviet Union — The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn’t been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community’s budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992

Economic Espionage — In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA’s clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993

Haiti — The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti’s military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country’s ruling class.

1994 – Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.[RL30172]

1995 – Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.[RL30172] (See Operation Deliberate Force)

1996 – Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens" in Liberia he had ordered US military forces to evacuate from that country "private US citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the US Embassy compound...."[RL30172]

1996 – Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of "private US citizens and certain U.S. Government employees", and to provide "enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui."[RL30172]

1997 – Albania. On March 13, 1997, US military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private US citizens from Tirana, Albania. (See also Operation Silver Wake)[RL30172]

1997 – Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of US military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.[RL30172]

1997 – Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, US military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain US government employees and private US citizens.[RL30172]

1997 – Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 US military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. [RL30172]

1998 – Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq.[RL30172] (See Operation Desert Fox)

1998 – Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.[RL30172]

1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. [RL30172]

1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.[RL30172]

1998 – Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.[RL30172]

1999 - 2001 East Timor. East Timor Independence Limited number of US military forces deployed with UN to restore peace to East Timor.[RL30172]

1999 – NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.[RL30172] (See Operation Allied Force)

[edit] 2000-2009

2000 – Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.[RL30172]

2000 – Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172]

2000 – East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172]

2001 – Afghanistan. War in Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and "begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters."[RL30172]

2002 – Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172]

2002 – Philippines. OEF-Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[RL30172]

2002 – Côte d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Côte d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.[6] [RL30172]

2003 – 2003 invasion of Iraq leading to the War in Iraq. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, Australia and Spain to invade Iraq with the stated goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and undermining Saddam Hussein.[RL30172]

2003 – Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 combat-equipped US military personnel into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172]

2003 – Georgia and Djibouti "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."[7]

2004 – 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172]

2004 – War on Terrorism: US anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[8]

2006 – Pakistan. 17 people including known Al Qaeda bomb maker and chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi, were killed in an American MQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border.[9][10]

2006 – Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of US citizens willing to the leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[11][12]

2007 – Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[citation needed]

2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia. Helped Georgia humanitarian aid[13], helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.

2009 – Pakistan, In relation to efforts in Afghanistan, U.S. Forces struck an insurgent encampment in the Northern mountains, killing 24, with missiles fired from an unmanned aerial assault vehicle.


Nice list. Too bad about all of the speculation. Imagine what it would look like if you weren't grinding axes. So, has the CIA been disbanded? Why aren't they doing their job these days now that we need them so badly?


Don't worry, Misanthrope, they are still running their black site prisons, interfering in other nations' soverign business and doing all the nefarious misdeeds that keep you "safe" from the evil Islamoboogiemen that you fear so much. With people like you around to perpetuate the fearmongering, we can expect much more of the same.


So? Your point is?


Point is that our foreign policy, militarism and military-industrial complex is the greatest threat to our country in the long term, other than climate change. A greater threat than than terrorism, North Korea or Iran combined. We are our own worst enemy.


Gee, Reality, nice, measured rhetoric. Just the thing that will win hearts and minds. Very realistic - well, at least as dispassionate, impartial and realistic as your list. Where does the term "black site prison" come from? A non-partisan, objective source - like the source of the term "evil Islamoboogiemen" and the source of your list?

"This once great nation" I guess that you don't think it is great anymore. Tell us, when do you think it was great? What year did its greatness cease to be? Do you believe that if we ignored attacks on our people and threats of more we would become great again? If we were to denounce war tomorrow and pledge to forgo engaging in any sort of military action or meddling do you believe that war would end - or even diminish? In fact, exactly the opposite would happen. History has proven that only strength and resolve discourage war. As I pointed out above, war is horrible, but NOTHING can prevent war.

That the United States has engaged in nefarious activities from time to time is undeniable. The fact that the United States has been attacked on several fronts and is now engaged in a war which poses dangers to its citizens and serious threats to the country's well being and even its existence is also undeniable. You seem to deny it? Am I misreading you?


Greatness is lost little by littel, starting after WWII as we really started ramping up our empire and engaging in conflicts that shouldn't have been waged. Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam come to mind, along with the proxy war in Afghanistan that helped create al-Qaeda. Each time we violate the soverign rights of other countries and further tarnish ourselves we lose a little mor of that greatness.

Misanthrope, you are one to talk about "measured rhetoric", with your constant apocolyptic fear-mongering about your feared Islamoboogiemen.


RC, do you have that list memorized? Wow.

"That the United States has engaged in nefarious activities from time to time is undeniable."

might explain:

"The fact that the United States has been attacked on several fronts and is now engaged in a war which poses dangers to its citizens and serious threats to the country's well being..."

not so sure about:

"and even its existence is also undeniable."

Only if we do it to ourselves, IMHO.

If Osama could even conceivably threaten our existence then what the heck are the Chinese, Russians, and Venezuelans waiting for?


"The NPs of the world simply want to shut down real discussion through banal taunts, that is the only control they will ever have -- sowing anarchy and dissension to stop progress."

So, "real discussion" is uncritical, superficial, patriotic pitter-patter and man-love among glassy-eyed true believers? Fits the blustery, weapon-waving sheeple on TalkAbout but in the wider world is representative of nothing of import.


Hey Now Pitching, I thought we were clear on our not wanting to hold each others hands arrangement.


NP says. and I quote.

"The NPs of the world simply want to shut down real discussion through banal taunts, that is the only control they will ever have -- sowing anarchy and dissension to stop progress."

I agree.

Rat Droppings


Well, "Reality" - with enough time to research and prepare such a "lesson" for the rest of poor, ignorant, "open mouth breathers" (to use one of your (NP) terms) and enlighten us with your particular take on events of history, you surely must be one of Obama's guys. Anybody who has to WORK doesn't have enough time to do something like that. Happy "Winter Festival" to you. I am SO impressed with your knowledge and erudition!


Thanks! Glad I could enlighten you!


I'm glad to see that we have at least a little greatness left in us. As I look around it appears that the U.S. is still the greatest nation that ever existed - I guess that is an illusion. Can't say that I disagree with you about the Gulf of Tonkin or Vietnam. Still, blots on our escutcheon aside, it seems clear that, but for us and our might, all the people in the world would fall into one of two groups 1)SLAVES --- 2)MASTERS.

Sky, a few well placed nukes or even a single well placed electromagnetic pulse bomb could weaken this country enough to tempt an invasion that, in our weakened state, could be successful. Osama? probably dead or at least dying. Do you really believe that Russia or China (especially China) will not take advantage of a weakened state? They say they will. They teach their children that the time will come when they will fight the United States. Why don't they just do it? We are too important as a market, we owe them too much money, we are still too strong.


Maybe we should fire up Gitmo and start water boarding some Asian sleeper engineers. It could be that they are assembling that EMP in a garage down in Santa Clara as I post.

"They teach their children that the time will come when they will fight the United States."

That just proves that they agree with you that war is inevitable and there is nothing that can be done about it.

If I remember correctly, at the start of the Bush II administration that Chinese expansionism was supposed to be our main military concern. They are poisoning their environment, desertification is destroying their ability to feed themselves, they have little oil, and they have a huge population imbalance.

Are you sure that Osama and friends are really what we should be afraid of?


I posted this on another thread, but it fits better here:

" I love peace, and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer."

" War has been avoided from a due sense of the miseries, and the demoralization it produces, and of the superior blessings of a state of peace and friendship with all mankind."

" I value peace, and I should unwillingly see any event take place which would render war a necessary resource."

" Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness."

" Believing that the happiness of mankind is best promoted by the useful pursuits of peace, that on these alone a stable prosperity can be founded, that the evils of war are great in their endurance, and have a long reckoning for ages to come, I have used my best endeavors to keep our country uncommitted in the troubles which afflict Europe, and which assail us on every side."

" I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect."

" We love and we value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and calamities."

" The evils which of necessity encompass the life of man are sufficiently numerous. Why should we add to them by voluntarily distressing and destroying one another? Peace, brothers, is better than war. In a long and bloody war, we lose many friends, and gain nothing. Let us then live in peace and friendship together, doing to each other all the good we can."

" Born in the same land, we ought to live as brothers, doing to each other all the good we can, and not listening to wicked men, who may endeavor to make us enemies. By living in peace, we can help and prosper one another; by waging war, we can kill and destroy many on both sides; but those who survive will not be the happier for that."

" I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind."

" I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another."

" One war, such as that of our Revolution, is enough for one life."

"The most successful war seldom pays for its losses."

"War is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer."

" War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."


who did you steal that from? Woodrow Wilson ?


who did you steal that from? Woodrow Wilson ?


Forgot to give credit, which goes to Thomas Jefferson.


As I said, I think Osama is dead. China does seem to be the bigger threat, but, they are getting to the point where they have too much to lose - IF - we maintain our nuclear arsenal and ability to deliver. The scariest thing about the Islamists - they think death is just fine, especially if they die fighting --- so what's to lose?

The realest reality is that war with radical Islam is now - China is still around the corner.

Do you believe that war is not inevitable - that there is a world without war in the future - the forseeable future - that the king of the hill will not always be an irresistable challange? ? ? ?


Do you think we are really fighting radical Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan?


"I feel assured that no American will hesitate to rally round the standard of his insulted country in defense of that freedom and independence achieved by the wisdom of sages and consecrated by the blood of heroes." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Georgetown Republicans, 1809. ME 16:350

"Should foreign nations... deceived by [an] appearance of division and weakness, render it necessary to vindicate by arms the injuries to our country, I believe... that the spirit of the revolution is unextinguished, and that the cultivators of peace will again, as on that occasion, be transformed at once into a nation of warriors who will leave us nothing to fear for the natural and national rights of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Bloodgood and Hammond, 1809. ME 12:317

"We deplore the event which shall oblige us to shed blood for blood and shall resort to retaliation but as the means of stopping the progress of butchery. It is a duty we owe to those engaged in the cause of their country to assure them that if any unlucky circumstance baffling the efforts of their bravery shall put them in the power of their enemies, we will use the pledges in our hands to warrant their lives from sacrifice." --Thomas Jefferson: Report to

Congress, 1775. Papers 1:276.

"Although our prospect is peace, our policy and purpose are to provide for defense by all those means to which our resources are competent." --Thomas Jefferson to James Bowdoin, 1806. ME 11:121

"[Montesquieu wrote in his Spirit of Laws, X,c.2:] 'The right of natural defense carries along with it sometimes the necessity of attacking; as, for instance, when one nation sees that a continuance of peace will enable another to destroy her, and that to attack that nation instantly is the only way to prevent her own destruction." --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book "A people having no king to sell them for a mess of pottage for himself, no shackles to restrain their powers of self-defense, find resources within themselves equal to every trial. This we did during the Revolutionary war, and this we can do again, let who will attack us, if we act heartily with one another." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:67

So there!


Again, do you think we are really fighting radical Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan?


Yes we are fighting radical Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we accomplishing our goals? Not that I can see. Should we care how they do things downtown in Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or India? No.

I wonder if TJ had to say about our trying to resolve tribal conflicts in the middle east and south asia.


Really? I would say that we have inserted ourselves into the Civil Wars of two different countries. Do we really want to be chosing sides between one corrupt regime over another? Our own intelligence sources say that the number of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is in the couple hundred individual range. I don't think we are fighing Islamic radicals at all, but we sure are creating an aweful lot of them in our misadventures.


That is the best argument you have put forth.


Regarding whether we are fighting Islamic radicals, here is the opinion from the commander of the Black Hawk Down mission in Somalia,

Web Link


You mean Christian fundamentalist Lieutenant General William G. Boykin? Who sees the "War on Terror" from a heavily biblical point of view?

Sorry, but no thanks.


I think that we are fighting radical Islam in Afghanistan - the Taliban. Should we be doing that? Not so sure. Can we win in Afghanistan as we won in Iraq - probably not. If it were up to me, we would quietly pull out of Afghanistan while vowing to fight there forever. We did not go into Iraq to fight Islam. We went into Iraq to depose a modern Hitler - and succeded - and saved the world from another Holocaust.

Our intelligence was well aware of the sympathies and activities of Nidal Hassan. Why did they not stop him? I believe that Intelligence saw him as a source - follow him closely and learn much about his contacts, their activities and intentions. They simply misjudged the immediate danger he posed. A misjudgement - leave it at that and learn what we can from it. Nothing good will come from all of the self-serving calls for investigations.

The underlying, ultimate truth is that we are at war - like it or not - and must fight that war as best as we can - or lose it.


RC,

and why we are to trust your opinion of LTG Boykin?, you, who said " I don't think we are fighing Islamic radicals at all, but we sure are creating an aweful lot of them in our misadventures. "

You need to read more, start with Blackhawk Down, and read some history of Islam, I suggest Ghost Wars, a summary of radical Islam the past few decades up til 9-10-2001. Pakistan figured mightily into much of the mayhem, much as today.


"The underlying, ultimate truth is that we are at war - like it or not - and must fight that war as best as we can - or lose it."

And the slopping down of the propaganda, followed by regurgitation, goes on.


Mr. Now Pitching, many think you are regurgitation...


There is really no need for "war" in the traditional sense. We have the technology that allows us to decimate the enemy without placing our armed forces in a theater. A single tactical nuke would do the job. But no one has the resolve.


"To Thee, Oh God, we give all praise,

That Thou hast made our hand so strong,

For now, as in our fathers' days,

We and Thou can do no wrong."

"No need for war" - you have a point....and there are so many who

deserve whatever we would drop on them, and more.


Nnfw,

As I recall if you were to use a neutron bomb it would leave all the buildings and infrastructure but only kill humans and other living things. But on second thought, along the Afghani-Pak border there is no infrastructure, so a single tactical nuke might work, but what would you do with all that nasty residual radiation. Peace is a very hard concept to grasp for us humans, maybe "War is the answer..."


Just as happenned in Japan, the radiation would disipate.


The Japanese are still paying the price for the radiation contamination to this day.


They brought it on themselves.


That is not the point.


Japan was an expanding industrial nation. European powers had colonized all of the countries that would have been Japan's natural oil trading partners. Unless you want to make the case that Anglo Imperialism was different then Japanese imperialism, what Japan did to ultimately bring the Atomic bombs was to challenge France, England, and Holland for control of resources.


>>Unless you want to make the case that Anglo Imperialism was different then Japanese imperialism<<

The Brits generally left places better than they found them. The Japs - not so much.


Yes, the Brits were such a generous and thoughtful lot. Another load of crap.


>>Yes, the Brits were such a generous and thoughtful lot.<<

I didn't say that, Wierd, I said that they generally left places better than they found them. I don't deny that they used them. The Japs - they enslaved - and they weren't even nice about it.

.

I think that when all is said and done, and we have all ranted our rants, Billy's opening salvo has much going for it ---

>>War is NOT the Answer... Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism.<<

.


Go, Billy, GO.

I think your mission is accomplished here, what is next.


Without WWI I would be speaking German today.

Without WWII I would be speaking German and/or Japanese.

Without the Korean War we would not have 38,000 troops there today.

Without Reagan, the Berlin wall would still be standing.

Without Desert Storm Saddam may have owned all the oil in the world.

Without 911 I could go to airports without being harassed and fearful.

Without WAR?

Would we have been better off? or worse off?


Reagan didn't cause the Berlin wall to fall.

Kuwait isn't Saudi Arabia, so he wouldn't have owned all he oil in the world.

What good do 38,000 troops in S. Korea do?

We are no safer today than pre-9/11.

We would be better off without war. All of them.


Yemen is causing us to re-evaluate many things-- Guantanamo, embassys, screening of passengers, and drones.


War is not the answer. We need to apologize for all our errors and promise to do more.


For a few alms, Brian Ginna and George will be happy to make up an answer for you.


If You Might lie Prostate before your Agressors, They may Forgive You........................................................

Or NOT.


War does more good than many people know.

War clarifies who the good, bad and the ugly really are.

War focusses the minds and wills of otherwise disoriented people.

War forces people to choose what path they will take in life.

War causes people to reflect on what they will or will not die for.

War is a Question. Who are you, and what do you stand for?


So sorry to learn you are so aimless and unable to figure things out for yourself that you need an activity that slaughters people and feeds the power and wealth vampires in order to get oriented and develop a sense of self.


Oh great and wise seer of all, NP, enlighten us for we are so low in our mental faculties that we need the fruits of your great intellect show us the way....that's what YOU think, anyway. Well, dear friend, the chickens are now starting to come home to roost and the great Obamanation is definitely trailing smoke after the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and...the big one...Massachusetts! The American people are awakening from their dream state and grabbing reality. You and yours are going down and it feels good. Take Fat Albert, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of that band of traitors with you.


Have you noticed what is going on in Marjah, and Karachi, and Kabul and Dubai lately?

Perhaps War IS the Answer.


Unfortunately, regressive, I believe you are right. I always have thought this even though it is unpleasant. Our enemies are at their best when they are either dead or have a combat boot placed securely on their necks.


Gee, wee one, your enemies were just saying the same the same thing about you with just as much [nothing] behind their convictions.


Yes, general Nipper, we know all about your great prowess on the field of battle...it is all with your famous mouth. You're kind of like that movie "The Mouse that Roared"; the title is fitting, not the theme.


I wonder who is saluting the Afghan flag in Marjah today. Rebuilding of the community starts tomorrow by the Afghan government, God, or Allah, knows the Taliban did no rebuilding.


One wonders why dear, patriotic wemoan is not over there doing good for his country.

Such good news that the thoroughly corrupt government of Afghanistan is being put in charge of the town. This on the same day we get the news they will no longer require the services of outside election overseers. The only question remains: Why is the U.S. military spending another day there with all this expression of Afghan self-confidence and display of independence? Obama has had his time to play war, as all president's like to do to show their commander-in-chief side and to appeal to the gung-ho murdering patriots who get off on unnecessary wars. Can't think of any other reason it would be in the U.S.'s interest to stay there.


Nipper: I did my time; now I think the real battle for the future of our country is right here at home, against domestic enemies who hate just about everything about our country...people like you, Nipper.

There is probably a drone circling right over your yurt right now, Nip, pretty soon a nice Hellfire missile will be heading to its destination, playing the tune "Bye, Bye, Nipper" all the way down.

God Bless America.


Rhetoric that questions another American's patriotism is the lowest, most vile form of debate there is. You're despicable.


you just don't know the nip


Oh, yes I do. No excuse.


boys, cool it or clay will nip us all.

be kind to each other, you know, like our congress used to be.

this topic is about war, love it or not, it is here to stay.

Ok, back to topic

perhaps, regressive is right

"Have you noticed what is going on in Marjah, and Karachi, and Kabul and Dubai lately?

Perhaps War IS the Answer."


Wow, wemoan, it looks like the impossible has happened! Either the Nipper has reproduced or cloned himself because there could not be TWO.

"And a sad..." - are you the Nipper's offspring? Are you half goat or sheep? Perhaps you are his clone?? My God, the great Piled Higher and Deeper has achieved what the greatest scientists in the world are only dreaming of doing! Probably not a good idea to be in the area where he lives; you could be classed as collateral damage when the big moment comes.


Naw, you guys got it all wrong. Any NP offspring has to be a product of hermaphroditic auto-insemination. The fertilized eggs are kept in the NP's cloaca and expelled, when mature, through the anal aperture. That is to say, the NP f'd himself. The offspring come forth from the same place as his ideas and foul and lengthy verbiage.


I think war is swell.

Web Link


Gee, Nipper, that veterinarian really poured it to you; are you gonna let him get away with that or did he just hit home with those comments?

He must know something that I don't.


Boys, boys, boys...

NP is in the middle of a buddy study with serious eco-bucks in his trough. Give him a break. NP needs an eco-topic to bring in more business, so WAR is not on his Top Ten.


Regressive: I like your choice of the term "trough"; that is appropriate. I suppose this is a little carry over from the NP's glory days of cavorting with the sheep on a property just south of town. Ah, how he longs for those days! Nipper, don't get any wild ideas; I don't want to see you down at the local vet having some double - O dug out of your buttocks.


obama is failing at foreign policy and domestic policy. HE offends our foreign allies, and is an idealogue on domestic policy. When obama is asked to consider alternative approaches, HE reponds, "I WON"

As I recall, prior presidents were quick to assure people that they represented all the people. not obama, he will only represent the 52.4% that voted for HIM and Smash the other 47.6%.

Is there any wonder, Tea Party busses are loading up and rolling to Searchlight, Nevada on March 26, 2010?


Hey Regressive, are you going? Are you planning to double the kids college fund? Going to get some action at one of those free enterprise zones on the edge of town?

"HE offends our foreign allies, and is an idealogue on domestic policy. When obama is asked to consider alternative approaches, HE reponds, "I WON""

Well he is the decider and he has yet to refer to Europe as Old World and he did go on that apology tour. Which allies do you speak of? Who did we offend? Sarkozy?

Have you ever been to Searchlight Nevada? Ugly place. Depressing and boring. Nothing but a bunch of zombies plugging change into slot machines. Pathetic.

Have fun!


Equation: You got that right...ol' Dingy Harry fits right in, he's kind of a zombie. Btw, Obama may have offended Sarkozy - he's one of our greatest supporters; to many others he bowed down.


Peace is a Goal, War is Forever.

Tea Parties can make a big Difference.

Let the people speak.

Listen.


"Rhetoric that questions another American's patriotism is the lowest, most vile form of debate there is."

If it's the local old boys lost in their bestial fantasies doing the questioning, not to worry. They are only playing the schoolyard games they never grew out of. If they had real convictions, they would be off fighting for some imagined cause, not getting half-drunk in the American Legion and exchanging war stories apropos of nothing.

And when it comes to blind, knee-jerk patriotism, I have none. I favor nothing one way or the other just because someone runs it up the flagpole. When someone tries to dictate something someone else is supposed to be patriotic about, remember the words Boswell ascribes to Samuel Johnson and the consensus, as far as there is one, on what Johnson meant.


Nipper: I have been missing you. I am glad you found time away from your own "bestial fantasies" to write some comments. For once a posting with less name calling and charges of low intellect; by the way, why didn't you give us your quote? I remind you, Nipper, war is for the young; those of us who already served are old and not really up to it. Were we able, we would rather go and sacrifice ourselves and allow more of the young to live and prosper...if to prosper is still possible under the current administration.


"I remind you, Nipper, war is for the young; those of us who already served are old and not really up to it."

Sorry, no excuses, not even the contrived ageist one, for your cowardice. The least we can do for all the old people dying in the wars the U.S. has started recently is have someone their own age kill them, don't you agree?

"Were we able, we would rather go and sacrifice ourselves and allow more of the young to live and prosper...if to prosper is still possible under the current administration."

Weapon up and git on over, would-be hero. Nothing is stopping you except your feeble excuses. Prop a gun mount on that roll of blubber and fire away at them evil collaterals.


Nipper:

The main problem of useless blubber around here is that which you have growing between your ears and on your useless ass as you sit there pontificating from the comfort of your cave. Most of us who have served have killed men better than you.


OK, I've had enough of this one. Thanks for playing, everyone.


Add a comment

Sorry, this topic is locked.

Powered by Podium