On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:04:41 -0500,
wrote:

Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed. I say the US should just
nuke the entire middle east and end all the fighting and threats.

Then they will HAVE to nuke New England (see the movie "Fail Safe").

"Big Al" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...



bush is worse than LBJ another failed president.......


What about Carter? He set the standard.

Al





US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

Jimmy Carter also negotiated the N.Korea "Agreed Framework" where they
agreed to not make nuclear weapons.(without any checks to see if they
actually would abide by their word.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Something like this eh?

http://www.grendelcat.com/nuggets/pi...ugpic00692.htm

--
Steve


wrote in message
...
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed. I say the US should just
nuke the entire middle east and end all the fighting and threats.

On 17 Oct 2006 22:56:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

It's completely unfair to say he did nothing.
He fretted, wrung his hands and tried to reason with them.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:47:55 -0500, GWB wrote:

On 17 Oct 2006 22:56:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

It's completely unfair to say he did nothing.
He fretted, wrung his hands and tried to reason with them.

Good 'un!

Aspasia

On Oct 17, 5:04 am, wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East.

Awh, come on, why would we want to do that -- camels need luvin' too...
snicker

As much as I would enjoy seeing the entire Middle East a pile of molten
slag, I think a more fitting solution might be to find a cheap
replacement for oil so that they could go back to being the POOR camel
****in' Bedoins that they have been throughout history (vs the rich
camel ****in' Bedoins that they are *now*)...

Of course, if we nuke 'em, we'll get bad PR and the rest of the world
won't like us anymore... Uhhhh... And that's different that their
feelings towards us now, exactly how? Hmmmm... Oh well, nukes are
cheap, let's get it a try...

In article ,
GWB wrote:

On 17 Oct 2006 22:56:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

It's completely unfair to say he did nothing.
He fretted, wrung his hands and tried to reason with them.

Sent an undermanned rescue operation that went bad at Desert 1.

We know who you are and we know what you did.

yeah bush has every phone call we make anywhere traceable, and although
they deny it probably recorded as soon as the equiptement is available.
all this domestic spying is bad, first it terrorism, then kiddie porn,
then murder, then rape, then tax evasion since all this spying costs a
fortune, then its speeding, etc etc etc......

the costs involved in what will be a ever widening dragnet can kill the
country just as assuredly as a couple big EMP electro matgnetic pulse
bombs that can wipe out all the non military hardened electronics in
the US. like the power grid, computer controlled anything, a
transorized radio..........



it takes much infrastructure to pump crude and is easy to disrupt. If
we really nuked somewhere in the mid east no doubt some terrorists
would sink a few tankers in the straight of horum and gas rationing
would be here immediately.

You usually don't have rationing under a Republican president. During
Carter's rationing, there was never a shortage of oil, only a shortage of
CHEAP oil. Had he let the market determine the price, there would have been
no lines at the pumps and no shortages. Anyway, Republicans believe the
market controls, Democrats believe in government constraints (as in Hawaii
recently).

When suddendly the mod east has been nuked, oil disrupted, zero flow
for awhile rationing would occur. the poor would riot if only wealth
had gasoline to go to work. to keep the economy limping along rationing
would be number one. although there would no doubt be a large market in
resold stamps.





take note Iraq a oil rich country has gasoline shortages and imports
oil because of terrorist disruptions.

Well, no. Iran, for example, imports 60% of its gasoline. Oil is one thing,
the capability to turn oil into something useful is another matter. Both
Iraq and Iran lack sufficient refining capacity.


Of we cant handle one country how on earth would we manage a regional
conflict?

take note another Bush blunder is while distracting us N Korea knows
we cant have another war at the same time, eith fiancially, or
political support for.

so that leader is taking large advantage of bushes stupid
moves,,,,,,,,,,,

Nah, North Korea will be handled by the Japanese (who hate Koreans anyway).

do you recall WW2? When japan lost they were stripped of nearly all
military abilities, all they were allowed to keep was a small self
defense ability, no way they are taking on
n korea.

I say defeat n korea by starving out the idiots, they import most of
their food. cut off ALL IMPORTS, and the poor folks will go to other
countries to survive. the regime would topple.

of course china and s korea DONT want that!!! too disruptive to their
economies.

why defeat n korea militarily just shut off their food, have the US pay
s korea and china for every immigrant. to cover costs. send in drones
over n korea dropping leaflets. your food as been turned off, come to
these countries for a better life.

would the last one leaving n korea please turn off the lights.........

idiout out of power

wrote:
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed. I say the US should just
nuke the entire middle east and end all the fighting and threats.

We have those plans.

We will be unable to fight in so many arenas. Once Israel confirms that
Iran is nuclear, Israel will attack using bunker buster bombs.

The Pentagon has contingency plans to attack 8 countries.

POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR
By RALPH PETERS

October 18, 2006 -- HAVE we lost the will to win wars? Not just in
Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more
important than victory?

It's hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious
to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military
leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept
that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral,
influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our
enemies.

They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and
Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.

Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes
- the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of
winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition
of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts
and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven
hyper-violence of our time.

We're back to struggling to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

The good news is that the Army and Marine Corps worked together on the
new counterinsurgency doctrine laid out in Field Manual 3-24 (the Army
version). The bad news is that the doctrine writers and their superiors
came up with fatally wrong prescriptions for combating today's
insurgencies.

Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts
ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear's political
insurgencies. It would be a terri- fic manual if we returned to Vietnam
circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it
comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the
smell of blood.

Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of
religion? Because the answers would have been ugly.

Wars of faith and tribe are immeasurably crueler and tougher to resolve
than ideological revolts. A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But
Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to
reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can - or would wish
to - change his blood identity.

So the doctrine writers ignored today's reality.

Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have stated explicitly and
repeatedly that they're waging a global jihad to re-establish the
caliphate. Yet the new manual ignores religious belief as a motivation.


The politically correct atmosphere in Washington deems any discussion
of religion as a strategic factor indelicate: Let our troops die, just
don't hurt anyone's feelings.

So the doctrine writers faked it, treating all insurgencies as
political. As a result, they prescribed an excellent head-cold
treatment - for a cancer patient. The text is a mush of pop-zen mantras
such as "Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction," "The best
weapons do not shoot," or "The more force used, the less effective it
is."

That's just nutty. Should we have done nothing in the wake of 9/11?
Would everything have been OK if we'd just been nicer? What non-lethal
"best weapons" might have snagged Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, where
the problem was too little military force, not too much violence?

Should we have sent fewer troops to Iraq, where inadequate numbers
crippled everything we attempted? Will polite chats with tribal chiefs
stop the sectarian violence drenching Iraq in blood?

On the surface, the doctrine appears sober and serious. But it's
morally frivolous and intellectually inert, a pathetic rehashing of
yesteryear's discredited "wisdom" on counterinsurgencies and, worst of
all, driven by a stalker-quality infatuation with T.E. Lawrence,
"Lawrence of Arabia," who not only was a huckster of the first order,
but whose "revolt in the desert" was a near-meaningless sideshow of a
sideshow.

Lawrence is quoted repeatedly, with reverence. We might as well cite
the British generals of the Great War who sent men over the top in
waves to face German machine guns.

You can trust two kinds of officers: Those who read a great deal and
those who don't read at all. But beware the officer who reads just a
little and falls in love with one book. A little education really is a
dangerous thing.

The new manual is thick - length is supposed to substitute for insight.
It should be 75 percent shorter and 100 percent more honest. If issued
to our troops in its present form, it will lead to expensive failures.
Various generals have already tried its prescriptions in Iraq - with
discouraging results, to put it mildly.

We've reached a fateful point when senior officers seek to evade war's
brute reality. Our leaders, in and out of uniform, must regain their
moral courage. We can't fight wars of any kind if the entire chain of
command runs for cover every time an ambitious journalist cries, "War
crime!" And sorry: Soccer balls are no substitute for bullets when you
face fanatics willing to kill every child on the playing field.

In war, you don't get points for good manners. It's about winning.
Victory forgives.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine recommends forbearance, patience,
understanding, non-violent solutions and even outright passivity.
Unfortunately, our enemies won't sign up for a replay of the Summer of
Love in San Francisco. We can't treat hardcore terrorists like
Halloween pranksters on mid-term break from prep school.

Where is the spirit of FDR and George C. Marshall, who recognized that
the one unbearable possibility was for the free world to lose?

We discount the value of ferocity - as a practical tool and as a
deterrent. But war's immutable law - proven yet again in Iraq - is that
those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with
compound interest in the end.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine is dishonest and cowardly.

We don't face half-hearted Marxists tired of living in the jungle, but
religious zealots who behead prisoners to please their god and who
torture captives by probing their skulls with electric drills. We're
confronted by hatreds born of blood and belief and madmen whose
appetite for blood is insatiable.

And we're afraid to fight.

You have a great understanding of world politics and should be
congratulated.

I am seeing nuclear war perhaps by the end of this year. It might be a
few weeks or a few months, but Israel must respond to Iran. Iran's plan
is to nuke Tel Aviv, London, and NY simultaneously.

Meanwhile, sleeper cells embedded in our country have targeted 7-8
cities. They will use suit case nuclear bombs or dirty bombs again
simultaneously. At this point, the Pentagon will implement its plan to
nuke 8 countries worldwide.

We will have no choice. Of course, the muslim problem is all our fault.
oh, and we deserve it oh and 9-11 too.

For the post who estutely observed that Jimmie Carter is the worst
president in US history: KUDOS! Carter makes my skin crawl. Then,
there's Clinton. I just lost breakfast.


bill allemann wrote:
It is probably inevitable, but will only happen after a major crater is
created in downtown, London, NYC, Los Angeles, wherever.


wrote in message
...
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed. I say the US should just
nuke the entire middle east and end all the fighting and threats.

In article . com,
"MRS. CLEAN" wrote:


We will have no choice. Of course, the muslim problem is all our fault.
oh, and we deserve it oh and 9-11 too.
To certain factions of Islam, religion has been a blood sport since
the beginning. You can trace similar behavior back for millenia. Why is
this suddenly our fault?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
But he can be impeached.

He won't be. The Dems learned not use that willie nillie (so to speak)
when the GOP went after Clinton. Especially since there is no way they
are going to get conviction.Dems aren't going to shoot themselves in the
foot for the next pres election by doing anything that dumb.. well
maybe.

What Bush has done is way worse than anuthing Clinton could
have ever dreamed up.

Bob

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article 0Y9Zg.1641$BC6.662@fed1read01,
"Steve B" wrote:


At least you will learn how thousands of people came to hate America
because
of Shah Rezlah Pahlavi, Savak, etc.
Someone got ****ed at the US over a vulcan in Starfleet? How
absurb.



They hate us because of the actions of our government. You know, the
people
we, the citizens, sent to Washington. You DO vote, don't you? You DO
understand the process don't you?


Yeah. that is why they picked on Clinton by bombing the Cole,
and the two African embassies among others. They also did not like
Carter, etc. etc. etc.

It's a little longer term problem than that. As your grandchildren will
see from Bush's occupation of Iraq.

Bob

wrote:

why defeat n korea militarily just shut off their food, have the US
pay
s korea and china for every immigrant. to cover costs. send in drones
over n korea dropping leaflets. your food as been turned off, come to
these countries for a better life.

would the last one leaving n korea please turn off the lights.........

idiout out of power

China would much rather send food to N. Korea than have 2-10 million
refugees. Much rather.

Therefore, China will, no matter what, keep sending "humanitarian" relief.
Until they finish building their fence.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...nce-facing.php

wrote in message
...
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed.

Unlike, for example, you.

GWB wrote:
On 17 Oct 2006 22:56:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

It's completely unfair to say he did nothing.
He fretted, wrung his hands and tried to reason with them.

He should obviously have invaded Iraq. They're Evil, you know.

wrote:

Nah, North Korea will be handled by the Japanese (who hate Koreans anyway).

do you recall WW2? When japan lost they were stripped of nearly all
military abilities, all they were allowed to keep was a small self
defense ability, no way they are taking on
n korea.

Except if they develop their own nukes, of course. Which will require
China to beef up their nukes. And hilarity will ensue.

MRS. CLEAN wrote:

We will have no choice. Of course, the muslim problem is all our fault.
oh, and we deserve it oh and 9-11 too.

For the post who estutely observed that Jimmie Carter is the worst
president in US history: KUDOS! Carter makes my skin crawl. Then,
there's Clinton. I just lost breakfast.

That's not all you've lost...

Kurt Ullman wrote in

..mx:

In article ,
GWB wrote:

On 17 Oct 2006 22:56:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444
days of captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

It's completely unfair to say he did nothing.
He fretted, wrung his hands and tried to reason with them.

Sent an undermanned rescue operation that went bad at Desert 1.


He ACHIEVED nothing.

And then gave up on OUR PEOPLE. Abandoned them.
Unforgivable.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

jeffc wrote:
wrote in message
...
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed.

Unlike, for example, you.

I guess you lack discernment.

You can't tell the difference between someone who wants you DEAD and a
regular Joe?

In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:kurtullman-
But he can be impeached.

He won't be. The Dems learned not use that willie nillie (so to speak)
when the GOP went after Clinton. Especially since there is no way they
are going to get conviction.Dems aren't going to shoot themselves in the
foot for the next pres election by doing anything that dumb.. well
maybe.

What Bush has done is way worse than anuthing Clinton could
have ever dreamed up.

You obviously think so. Still doesn't mean that the politics of going
through with impeachment make any sense.

In article . com,
"z" wrote:

MRS. CLEAN wrote:

We will have no choice. Of course, the muslim problem is all our fault.
oh, and we deserve it oh and 9-11 too.

For the post who estutely observed that Jimmie Carter is the worst
president in US history: KUDOS! Carter makes my skin crawl. Then,
there's Clinton. I just lost breakfast.

That's not all you've lost...

H ecould have invaded Iran at the time and solved all these problems.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article . com,
"z" wrote:

MRS. CLEAN wrote:

We will have no choice. Of course, the muslim problem is all our fault.
oh, and we deserve it oh and 9-11 too.

For the post who estutely observed that Jimmie Carter is the worst
president in US history: KUDOS! Carter makes my skin crawl. Then,
there's Clinton. I just lost breakfast.

That's not all you've lost...

H ecould have invaded Iran at the time and solved all these problems.

In case you haven't noticed, we can't even "solve" Iraq, which is a
pipsqueak next to Iran.

MRS. CLEAN wrote:
jeffc wrote:
wrote in message
...
Why dont we just nuke the entire Middle East. All those people want
to do is cause wars. Not a one of them are civilized. They are all
useless people and need to be destroyed.

Unlike, for example, you.

I guess you lack discernment.

You can't tell the difference between someone who wants you DEAD and a
regular Joe?

Yeah; the one posts on the Internet suggesting that millions of people
be nuked because some of them **** him off and he is too lazy to draw
any finer distinctions; then when they complain he feels justified
because they obviously hate "us" for no reason. And the other posts
here about what an asshole the first one is and he and bin Laden should
go to Hell together and slug it out between themselves. Or I guess I'm
supposed to be happy that the first guy isn't ****ed enough at ME yet
to want to nuke ME. Yet.

In article .com,
"z" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article . com,
"z" wrote:

MRS. CLEAN wrote:

We will have no choice. Of course, the muslim problem is all our fault.
oh, and we deserve it oh and 9-11 too.

For the post who estutely observed that Jimmie Carter is the worst
president in US history: KUDOS! Carter makes my skin crawl. Then,
there's Clinton. I just lost breakfast.

That's not all you've lost...

H ecould have invaded Iran at the time and solved all these problems.

In case you haven't noticed, we can't even "solve" Iraq, which is a
pipsqueak next to Iran.

But at the TIME of Carter was different.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article .com,
"z" wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article . com,
"z" wrote:


MRS. CLEAN wrote:


We will have no choice. Of course, the muslim problem is all our fault.
oh, and we deserve it oh and 9-11 too.

For the post who estutely observed that Jimmie Carter is the worst
president in US history: KUDOS! Carter makes my skin crawl. Then,
there's Clinton. I just lost breakfast.

That's not all you've lost...

H ecould have invaded Iran at the time and solved all these problems.

In case you haven't noticed, we can't even "solve" Iraq, which is a
pipsqueak next to Iran.


But at the TIME of Carter was different.

Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war? Our record of installing
governments and/or removing dictators isn't great since WWII. And if
Iraq sent their military over here to install the RIGHT government, we'd
be out in the street throwing roses at them ..

News channels have a bunch of retired generals offering expertise in
what is wrong and how we are doing in Iraq. I'd rather hear from
historians and anthropologists about how the west has mucked things up
for the past few hundred years. We COULD let them get a democracy the
same way we did .. at least someday the Iraqi dollar bill will have a
likeness of George Bush with his "deer-in-the-headlights" expression.
Instead of "In God We Trust", it will say "We're Gonna Get 'Em". Yep.

In article . net,
Norminn wrote:


Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war? Our record of installing
governments and/or removing dictators isn't great since WWII. And if
Iraq sent their military over here to install the RIGHT government, we'd
be out in the street throwing roses at them ..
Heck it sucked pretty much since at least WWI, thus the stuff that
lead to WWII. Actually we pretty much armed Iraq to the point where we
could ensure stalemate. We weren't all that thrilled about the
possibility of Iraq taking over, either.


News channels have a bunch of retired generals offering expertise in
what is wrong and how we are doing in Iraq. I'd rather hear from
historians and anthropologists about how the west has mucked things up
for the past few hundred years. We COULD let them get a democracy the
same way we did .. at least someday the Iraqi dollar bill will have a
likeness of George Bush with his "deer-in-the-headlights" expression.
Instead of "In God We Trust", it will say "We're Gonna Get 'Em". Yep.

Thousands of years. Of course the Arabs screwed things up for
themselves long before anyone from West got there. That whole area has
been a basket case from the dawn of recorded history.

Norminn wrote in
ink.net:


Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war?

No.

Russia did.France did.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 18 Oct 2006 09:00:28 -0700, "z" wrote:


wrote:

Nah, North Korea will be handled by the Japanese (who hate Koreans anyway).

do you recall WW2? When japan lost they were stripped of nearly all
military abilities, all they were allowed to keep was a small self
defense ability, no way they are taking on
n korea.

Except if they develop their own nukes, of course. Which will require
China to beef up their nukes. And hilarity will ensue.


Don't be ridiculous. China has no fear of NK on any front military,
economic or chaos. Given her druthers China will rather have a Korea
that can control her own affairs. Keeping Kim junior in charge and
providing him the means to feed and clothe his people is a very cheap
and effective policy.

On 19 Oct 2006 00:29:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Norminn wrote in
link.net:


Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war?

No.

Russia did.France did.

ARE. YOU. KIDDING!!!!

We SOLD Saddam the poison gas he used on Iran AND on the Kurds,
and we showed him how to use it!

The infamous US "tilt" toward Iraq during the reign of Bush I featured
EXTENSIVE technology and arms transfers. Googling keywords "US arms
sale to Iraq during Iran-Iraq wars" yields MANY Web sites!

Facrynoutloud, read history!

Aspasia

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:00:11 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
GWB wrote:

On 17 Oct 2006 22:56:53 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

US Embassy invasion and hostage taking;holding our people for 444 days of
captivity under Jimmy Carter's admin,he did nothing.

It's completely unfair to say he did nothing.
He fretted, wrung his hands and tried to reason with them.

Sent an undermanned rescue operation that went bad at Desert 1.

Not only "undermanned" but poorly (amateurishly?) planned; far too
elaborate; doomed to failure. Don't forgive it cost the rescuers'
lives!

Aspasia

On 17 Oct 2006 22:21:20 -0700, wrote:

s much as I would enjoy seeing the entire Middle East a pile of molten
slag, I think a more fitting solution might be to find a cheap
replacement for oil so that they could go back to being the POOR camel
****in' Bedoins

Bedouins (sort of French spelling. The Israelis call them "Bedu".

that they have been throughout history (vs the rich
camel ****in' Bedoins that they are *now*)..

Our fault for letting them send their "royal" sons to Harvard. g
THEN they found out what the oil was really worth to the West!

Hey, have I got a "cheap replacement" for you!

Hemp has been used for millennia, not only for clothing, ropes, sails,
tarps, etc.etc. The OIL from hemp seeds runs engines very well,
thank you! Why do you suppose environmental-minded consumers are
buying fuel from enterprises set up to recycle ****ing RESTAURANT
GREASE! While the oilionnaires running our govt try their best
to keep these outlets rare and isolated.

Hemp cannot be used to get high, like its cousin, marijuana.
But for nearly 100 years, U.S. drug policy (designed and passed
through Congress at the behest of the oil, tire, and automotive
industries) still outlaws it from being cultivated in the U.S.
Strong, durable Hemp clothing, e.g., has to be imported from Canada.

Your contributor is not a drug user of anything stronger than bread
and butter, so don't infer from the above that I am pushing pot.

I am merely suggesting that hemp, which grows like a weed on
the most inhospitable ground and reseeds itself prolifically, could be
a fantastic petroleum substitute on many engines/motors, if our govt
and those voters who are deluded by its propaganda, could get their
heads out of their ***.

Aspasia

aspasia wrote:
On 19 Oct 2006 00:29:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:


Norminn wrote in
hlink.net:



Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war?

No.

Russia did.France did.


ARE. YOU. KIDDING!!!!

We SOLD Saddam the poison gas he used on Iran AND on the Kurds,
and we showed him how to use it!

The infamous US "tilt" toward Iraq during the reign of Bush I featured
EXTENSIVE technology and arms transfers. Googling keywords "US arms
sale to Iraq during Iran-Iraq wars" yields MANY Web sites!

Facrynoutloud, read history!

Aspasia


Not that I enjoy the thought of proliferation, but I think Iran would be
kind of stupid if they didn't want nukes. Evil empire? I tend to think
any empire that elects a cokehead fratboy president is evil .. a moron
with his finger on the button, and we encourage him. His thinking
hasn't changed since his dad caught him driving drunk, and little george
threatened his father .. mano y mano? More like "nino y mano". The
little video clip from the big econ conference was telling .. George
shooting the bull with heads of state, laughing his head off, groping
the German president, talking with his mouth full of food. Geesh.
Makes my skin crawl.

In article .net,
Norminn wrote:


Not that I enjoy the thought of proliferation, but I think Iran would be
kind of stupid if they didn't want nukes. Evil empire? I tend to think
any empire that elects a cokehead fratboy president is evil .. a moron
with his finger on the button, and we encourage him. His thinking
hasn't changed since his dad caught him driving drunk, and little george
threatened his father .. mano y mano? More like "nino y mano". The
little video clip from the big econ conference was telling .. George
shooting the bull with heads of state, laughing his head off, groping
the German president, talking with his mouth full of food. Geesh.
Makes my skin crawl.

But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

aspasia wrote:

Not only "undermanned" but poorly (amateurishly?) planned; far too
elaborate; doomed to failure. Don't forgive it cost the rescuers'
lives!

On the other hand, we have the Bushies' brilliantly planned and
executed regime change in Iraq with barely 1/3 the men it took his
father just to push them out of Kuwait. Now that's going so well, and
hardly killing more than a couple of thousand soldiers. Wonder how it
would have gone if Saddam really did have WMD, eh?

PaPaPeng wrote:
On 18 Oct 2006 09:00:28 -0700, "z" wrote:


wrote:

Nah, North Korea will be handled by the Japanese (who hate Koreans anyway).

do you recall WW2? When japan lost they were stripped of nearly all
military abilities, all they were allowed to keep was a small self
defense ability, no way they are taking on
n korea.

Except if they develop their own nukes, of course. Which will require
China to beef up their nukes. And hilarity will ensue.


Don't be ridiculous. China has no fear of NK on any front military,
economic or chaos. Given her druthers China will rather have a Korea
that can control her own affairs. Keeping Kim junior in charge and
providing him the means to feed and clothe his people is a very cheap
and effective policy.

No, I meant NK forces Japan to build up their defenses, nuke included,
and that worries China.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In case you haven't noticed, we can't even "solve" Iraq, which is a
pipsqueak next to Iran.

But at the TIME of Carter was different.

Yeah, early on the Iranians were **more** united behind their
government than they are now.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article .net,
Norminn wrote:



Not that I enjoy the thought of proliferation, but I think Iran would be
kind of stupid if they didn't want nukes. Evil empire? I tend to think
any empire that elects a cokehead fratboy president is evil .. a moron
with his finger on the button, and we encourage him. His thinking
hasn't changed since his dad caught him driving drunk, and little george
threatened his father .. mano y mano? More like "nino y mano". The
little video clip from the big econ conference was telling .. George
shooting the bull with heads of state, laughing his head off, groping
the German president, talking with his mouth full of food. Geesh.
Makes my skin crawl.


But a pot head (Yeah I didn't inhale) serial womanizer who can't
control his own behavior is just peachy keen to have with finger on the
button. Yeppers.

Let's expel from public office all the serial womanizers and everyone
who ever smoked pot. All of the presidents who are known reliably to
have cheated on their wives are still, by order of magnitude, so much
better in every respect than little george. I'm still trying to find
out what gwb ever accomplished without his daddy's help/money. He
doesn't do diplomacy because he can't possibly relate to heads of state
on that level.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article . net,
Norminn wrote:


Did we not arm Iraq during Iran/Iraq war? Our record of installing
governments and/or removing dictators isn't great since WWII. And if
Iraq sent their military over here to install the RIGHT government, we'd
be out in the street throwing roses at them ..
Heck it sucked pretty much since at least WWI, thus the stuff that
lead to WWII. Actually we pretty much armed Iraq to the point where we
could ensure stalemate. We weren't all that thrilled about the
possibility of Iraq taking over, either.


News channels have a bunch of retired generals offering expertise in
what is wrong and how we are doing in Iraq. I'd rather hear from
historians and anthropologists about how the west has mucked things up
for the past few hundred years. We COULD let them get a democracy the
same way we did .. at least someday the Iraqi dollar bill will have a
likeness of George Bush with his "deer-in-the-headlights" expression.
Instead of "In God We Trust", it will say "We're Gonna Get 'Em". Yep.

Thousands of years. Of course the Arabs screwed things up for
themselves long before anyone from West got there. That whole area has
been a basket case from the dawn of recorded history.

So has Europe. You're not forgetting WWI and WWII? People suck at
government above anything other than a tribal level. The only reason
North America has been immune until recently is remoteness,
underpopulation, and not having a long history.