Tuesday, August 17, 2004

 

It's a Doctrine


Don't dismiss it easily - it has enormous influence

So much of what has been happening over the past 16 months did not make sense to most Iraqis. Conspiracy theorists have been having a "good year"… and, believe me, there are many of them in Iraq.

I have been trying hard to find out some reason or justification for all those horrible mistakes and excesses or, better still, the source of all the tragedies that have beset my country and my people and the damage that is being done to both of our countries.

***


It is not the Republican Party! It's a doctrine.

The theorist and the strategist who was concocting plan after plan to achieve a certain vision of the future of America and Mankind is someone called Michael Ledeen who seems to have a surprisingly large influence on the present administration. I have spent many hours reading this man's writings (and they are many!). I was truly shaken!

It's a doctrine and this man is its guru.

The general starting premises are US defense (especially against terrorism), liberty and democracy. Noble enough! But if you examine the methods and the morality behind everything you will find so much contempt and disregard for so many values that decent human beings anywhere on earth cherish, including morality, justice, culture...

Two important concepts of this doctrine stand out: "Creative destruction" and "total war". You will find expressions like" Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically".

If you remove the façade (the democracy and liberty pretense), this man reminds me of another fanatic: Adolph Hitler.

Hitler did not say that he was mad! He also tried to wrap his sick distorted visions in facades acceptable to ordinary people and tickled primitive feelings of pride, power, superiority and nationalism… he also declared that he had a "noble" mission. He probably even believed that. So did many of those fanatics that followed him.

So many similarities: self-righteousness, fanaticism, stark selfishness, lack of any compassion, total disregard for human life and a doctrine based on fear, enemies, hatred and destruction. You can even find explanations for superiority in terms of genetic make-up … and, not surprisingly, both share a passion for Machiavelli!

[Please don't take my word for it; do your own search; it's all there. You need to know the views as well as the extent of their influence on the neocons in the present administration.]

I cannot understand how such outrageous views could have so much influence on a democratically-elected political administration in any civilized society.

***


American Conservatives and Republicans:

Even if you do not care much for the innocent Iraqi blood unnecessarily spilled and even if you do not care for the suffering of millions, then for the sake of all that American blood spilled and will yet be spilled in Iraq, in the US and elsewhere, I urge you to read this gentleman's publications carefully and critically. Perhaps then you may start to wonder how such fanaticism could have so much influence on the United States of America and its future course.

If I were a Republican or an American conservative, I would be in quite a dilemma. Republicans will be voting for a variety of social, economic and political issues but they will also be indirectly voting for this doctrine to have continued influence over their administration for four more years.

Hitler, you might remember, was elected into office.

This doctrine is even more dangerous to America than the enemies it aims to defeat because under this doctrine, America would not only lose the very foundations that made it powerful but would also lose its soul.

____________________________


Update 8/19/2004

1. Hitler was not elected into office in the American sense. He entered into a coalition as a leader of the largest party in the Reichstag in 1933. I thank (Mark of Chi-Town) for pointing this out.

2. I have noticed that a few commentators ridiculed the claim that this doctrine has significant influence… without doing any serious search! Google is a wonderful tool at your fingertip. Use only the sources that you can trust whether from the mainstream left or right. It may well be worth your while.

3. This is not a conspiracy-theory wild allegation. There is no conspiracy. Neocons have a doctrine that operates in the open. They have complete political control of DoD and important presence in the State Department.




Comments:

I care very much. And, you are so right.
Sincerely
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Khaleel:

I am disappointed with your superficial analysis. Ledeen's April 29th article that you link below is largely an exhortation for the U.S. to take a harder line with the "resistance" in Fallujah and elsewhere. Soon thereafter, the U.S. negotiated with the "resistance" in both Fallujah and with Al Sadr in Najaf. This is exactly the opposite approach to that advocated by Ledeen. Apparently, he doesn't have the influence on the administration that you assert.

He also states in the article, when discussing U.N. involvement in forming the interim government, that:

"The goal of American policy--in the eloquent words of President Bush--is the democratization of the Middle East, and democracy means that the people choose their leaders. Our panicky decisions suggested that we were not serious, that we reserved to ourselves the right to make all those decisions, even in the last days of Coalition hegemony. There was no urgent reason for us to make those decisions, indeed they should have been left to the Iraqis. If the Iraqi government decides to give jobs to Baathists, so be it; the officials of that government will have to submit to the electoral judgment of their own people. And the people, not the United Nations, should choose the Iraqi government."

Your characterization of his argument ignores this important bit. This paragraph doesn't sound like something someone with his heart set on world domination (like Hitler) would write. The administration also ignored his advice to completely cut the U.N. out the formation of the interim government.

On the other hand, your criticism of his "ends justifies the means" rhetoric seems well founded.

I am no neo-con, nor even a conservative for that matter, but your analysis of the influence Mr. Ledeen has on the U.S. adminstration and the linked article strike me as unfair.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Khaleel:

Hilter was not elected into office. He was appointed by President Hindenburg to a post as vice-chancellor and through a series of political maneuvers consolidated his gip on power upon Hindenburg's death.

See this link for a short biography:http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Biographies/MainBiographies/H/hitler/2.html.

Mark In Chi-Town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This article is ridiculous. The so-called influence this person has is obviously non-existant. As for the Hitler comparison, that is even more absurd.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Mpeach,
I'm hoping that you're leaving and will soon to be living in Cuba. Is that correct?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I came here expecting to find support from the Iraqis for getting rid of a man who put HUNDREDS of thousands in mass graves. A man who had rape rooms and instead I find a whole lot of second guessing. Instead it's a lot of bitching and moaning for not conducting a war with no loss of life and as to why Iraq doesn't look like New York City in a year. I mean it took years in Japan and Germany and this fool this should take a month. Unbelievable. Billions. I just hope this fool is not representative of the Iraqis. A sinking feeling in my gut tells me they are probably worse.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Honorable Annonymous,
While there are a FEW pro-Baathist blogs, most of the Iraqi blogs (including this one) appreciate that we have removed a dictator. However, we have, from early in the action, been making decisions which have cost the Iraqis greatly, which decisions were NOT the only appropriate decisions.

There is an analogy, frequently faced in the US. In the case of an abusive family the state may intervene, placing the children either in foster care or in state institutions. While this may be necessary, it is often enough destructive to the children in the results that the overall effectiveness of the program is questionable.

Note---even the Assyrians, who overall applauded our policies and pressed for the liberation several months before, are currently upset by the way our policies are working out--they are noting that at official American-Iraqi events, while there is a clear religious Moslem presence, there is NO such Christian presence. It seems to them that we're handing them from on who murders them for ethnic reasons to those who would oppress them for religious reasons.
Be Well,
Bob
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I think you *vastly* overrate the influence this guy has on policy. He might hang in the same circles as policy makers, and express ideas in parallel, but to suggest he is the driving ideological force behind them...you are on thin ice here. Not that he wouldn't like to play that role. but he's just one of many.

I appreciate your blog, particularly your criticisms. Keep up the good work. But try to suppress what appears to be an innate Iraqi habit of seeing a conspiracy behind every tree.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I am a Canadian who is scared of American foreign policy... I who used to be a great admirer of the US, attended university there, am a Christian, am Conservative in outlook...

Read Project for the New American Century... the clearly-stated goal of protecting American political, military, and economic dominance at any cost is absolutely chilling. http://www.newamericancentury.org/
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Yet another example of jumping to conclusions and assuming we're just like Hitler.

You're looking for something that isn't there. You want a perfect, bloodless war. This is impossible.

You keep talking as though Iraqi's are perfect people who don't deserve any of the bad that is happening to them. Sorry - you are completely wrong. Iraqi's have MUCH to be held accountable for. If these idiots hadn't been trying to fight us every step-of-the-way, FROM DAY ONE, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Iraqi's killed hundreds of thousands of people, even if it was Saddam that created the environment, HE didn't pull each trigger - Iraqi citizens did. Iraqi's participated in the Iran & Kuwait wars.

Where do you get-off criticizing us from the perspective that we're the cause and problem with everything that is wrong. Don't try and pull the spec out of my eye while you still have a log in your own!

Shall we discuss all of the mistakes that Iraqi's have made? The arrogance of 'knowing' what 'would have been' the right decisions is amazing...

Pete
 
_____________________________________________________________________

At last, another voice of reason.

Sincerely
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Michael Ledeen is not a strategist, he is a commentator. You can tell by the way he sweeps up everything in a swirl of simplification. What went right he credits to people who agreed with his own admirable foresight; what went wrong is due to the enemies of the moment. Thus he lends himself an air of always being correct, creating a false congruence with Iraq's current unfortunate situation.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu, you are partly correct. Nazism, Communism, Muslim-supremacy, Arab-supremacy, Christian-supremacy and liberal-democracy are all incompatible ideologies. If Iran had all the world's weapons, then we would right now be living under an Iranian-style theocracy.

You are correct, in that us neocons consider our liberal democracy based on humanist values to be superior to Iran's theocratic enslavement. The correct way to fight an ideological war is to do it globally, until the enemy's ideology has been snuffed out.

If you are on the other side of this war, ie you favour one of the dogmas, e.g. communism, or Arab nationalism etc etc, then you are indeed the enemy, and one way or the other, you will be disarmed or killed, if it is up to me.

At the end of the day, when you have an ideological conflict, the guns do the talking. One problem you will find that you have, is that because of our humanist ideology, we don't treat Turks or Kuwaitis etc etc as inferior people who should be exploited. Because of this, it is very easy for us to form alliances with practically anyone, because they tend to like us, or at least, tend to be neutral. So there is very little standing in the way of our ideology.

I still don't really know what you want. You said that spreading democracy was noble, and then at the same time you say that it is just like Hitler. This is the sort of moral equivalency that came up during the Cold War. The US and the USSR were considered to be the same because both had enormous quantities of nuclear weapons.

All but the completely brain-dead could see that they were exact opposites. One was an oppressive evil dogma, while the other was a humanist and science-based country. The trouble with non-humanists is that it is difficult to form alliances. The trouble with non-science is that it screws up your own economy. This is the main reason why the Middle East is a basket-case, and the forces of freedom are about to rip through the entire Middle East virtually unopposed. Actually, I was hoping that Iraq, as the latest free country, would join in the campaign. Any chance? Arabic-speakers would be GREAT, at least for the Syrian war. Will you help us? Especially after all the help we gave you. You know, like ENDING THE IRAQI HOLOCAUST. War is unpredictable, but it's probably less than a year before Iraqi is stable and OIF has been properly won. Iran will probably be done next. But after that, it will be Syria. Iraq should be stable by then. So will you help out in Syria?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Neocons have a doctrine that operates in the open. They have complete political control of DoD and important presence in the State Department."

I wish this was true. However, we actually have no idea at all whether the US government is planning on "continuing" the neocon agenda. It is most likely that they do not have a plan for "worldwide liberation". They will only be dealing with immediate problems. You can't plan these things too far in advance, because a lot of the plans are dependent on things we have no idea about. E.g., is there going to be a civil war in Iraq or Afghanistan? At the moment, we really have no idea.

Also, will democracy actually be successful in Iraq, or will the Iraqis vote for some radical that is going to lead them to yet another conflict with the west? No-one knows. We have very little data to work with. We know Japan took 7 years and worked. Germany took 5 years and worked. Iraq has been rushed into 2 years, and there are no clear trends yet.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Abu Khaleel:

IMHO, the influence of neo-cons is not as simple as you make it sound. I agree with you that there are a fair amount of neo-con true believers in the Department of Defense (DOD). The amount of influence they have on day-to-day policy is subject to debate.

The State Deartment, on the other hand, is generally reputed to oppose many of the policies advocated by the neo-cons in the DOD. Much of the disorganization in the immediate aftermath of the war was due to infighting between the two camps.

State was supposed to have had worked up a detailed plans for post-war reconstruction that the DOD crowd had shelved in favor of their more unilateral vision. The Bush adminstration's shift to a more nuanced political approach to Iraq (e.g., attempting to involve the U.N. in selection of the IG, early turn over of sovereignty) are reputed to have originated at State. Many have argued that, due to the lack of progress in Iraq, State's views are in the ascendancy, and the neo-con's are in retreat within the adminstration. You can expect that these two groups will continue to compete for influence in any future Republican adminstration.

Mark In Chi-town
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,
Middle Easterners are inveterate conspiracy mongers, however it this case there are an extensive web of conspiracies. Unfortunately, the spider in the center is not the sychophantic Michael Ledeen- an inarticulate stooge of the real powers that be.
Michael Moore really showed the system with Fahrenheit 911, detailing the alliance of the politically connected , legislative support of conservative think-tanks[they write most of the legistation that Congress never bothers to read], religious extremists and the newly minted 'fair and balanced' news media-Fox which dominates the other networks. All these groups are frank about their desire to use in particular US military power to accelerate globalization. They don't give a damn for any country, least of all America. Here they have gotten control of the republican party by pushing the conservative 'values'agenda( phoney devisive 'morality' issues anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, state support of religious institutions,etc. ) to win the support the religious fundamentalists. The worse thing is the way they have completely taken over the TV media, which I am sure you have noticed. They specialize in art of political character asassination, which they perfected when Clinton was in the White House and they have just turned on Kerry. It is true that they don't represent the Republicans I have known my whole life ( budget balancers, pro-choice, libertarian, isolationist,etc.) but it is also true that they have totally captured that party. As far as 'doctrine', they are flexible, like the Nazis who ridiculed the rigid official party philosopher Rosenberg. Their real philosophy is 'we will use US military and economic power to rule the world'.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

The term 'creative destruction' actually refers to the ability of market forces to 'create' new economic growth even in the process of 'destroying' competitors in the economy.

That is, even though fierce competition and technological development causes some businesses to be destroyed, it also creates new types of business opportunities and transforms the economy into something more efficient.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous, "to win the support the religious fundamentalists."

I'm an atheist, and I support Bush DESPITE the nutty religious stuff. So there's more to Bush's policy than that.

"The worse thing is the way they have completely taken over the TV media"

Right. So all the liberal media is in fact right-wing is it? Although the only one you can name is Fox News.

"They specialize in art of political character asassination"

You mean like all the Bush AWOL stuff?

"they have just turned on Kerry"

It would be helpful if Kerry actually ANSWERED the charges. Given that you clearly support him, and he isn't available, why don't you answer some questions for me so that we can have a serious discussion?

1. Did Kerry lie when he said he was in Cambodia?

2. Did Kerry lie when he said that he had personally committed war crimes?

3. Do you think it was a US crime to frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will, and do you think Kerry should apologize for his part in making that happen?

Answer those first and we can start having a serious debate, instead of just shouting slogans.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE(My Lord Edwards),
So you want to join the 'lies-to-smear Kerry campaign'. I'm not surprised, just the sort of thing you reveal in.
Bush's records, including many many missing days, you call AOL, disappeared destroyed in a fire I believe. Kerry's military service is public information.
Kerry has been vindicated by Mr. Roody of the Chicago Tribune who was there.
"Weighing in on what has become the most bitterly divisive issue of the 2004 campaign for the White House, William Rood of the Chicago Tribune said the tales told by Kerry's detractors are untrue."
Responses-
1.Kerry has been a public official for the last 30 years and during the war he opposed it. He said he was in Cambodia on a certain day, you say he retracted the date/place. I'm sure he was in Cambodia on a different day. This is pure bullshit.
2.Was he involved in war crimes? I guess he would know. From your blogs it's clear that you don't know what a war crime is.
3.Kerry went to Viet Nam to support his country supporting the South Viet Nam. By what twisted logic do you twist his actual service( as opposed to Bush's lip service)into betrayl of the South Viet Namese. He volunteered, he saw the wreck of the war and returned to condemn it as is the free speech right of every patriotic veteran of the war, but not chickenhawk Bush.
Here's more from Mr. Roody WHO WAS THERE.
"There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on February 28, 1969," he wrote in a story that appeared on the newspaper's Web site on Saturday.

"One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other."
Now it is your turn to apologize, or do you enjoy spreading lies? Trick question,I KNOW the answer.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"Right. So all the liberal media is in fact right-wing is it? Although the only one you can name is Fox News."
ABC-Disney is especially bad as Eisner is personally fixated on terrorism-I know someone who works for ABC. He's the one who violated the contract to distribute Fahrenheit 911, trying to suppress the movie.
CBS and NBC are me too outfits,cutting the investigative news divisions and following Fox's 'breaking news. Murdoch likes to substitute opinion for actual news which also saves money on paying for investigators. The other networks get the message and report on what Fox is saying as if it is real news( like Bush winning in Florida before the polls even closed-impossible, which caused the networks to call it for Bush which discourage voters on the west coast,etc).
CNN is still trying to resist the 'Fox formula', but their ratings are not good.
"I'm an atheist, and I support Bush DESPITE the nutty religious stuff. So there's more to Bush's policy than that."
That's hilarious! Why not, atheistic Australia isn't being threatened by Bible-thumping Nazis like Ashcroft. You don't give a damn about life in America or Iraq.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous, thanks for the reply, it is so much more interesting than slogans:

"1. Did Kerry lie when he said he was in Cambodia?"

I see you have now claimed that Kerry was in Cambodia, but on a different date to the one he said was "seared in his brain". Given that he was only there for 4 months, can you tell me which date he was selected for this CIA operation that is seared in his brain? Has the Kerry campaign provided the alternative date? Is there any other witnesses? Who was involved in this CIA op?

"2. Did Kerry lie when he said that he had personally committed war crimes?"

Ok, you seem to believe that he did commit war crimes. In that case, can you please list the war crimes that he personally committed, and why was he not charged with them? It is illegal to obey an illegal order. Did he ask for the illegal order (if any) to be given to him in writing, prior to committing the crimes? Depending on the war crime, he may be eligible to be hung. Criminals aren't allowed to run for president, regardless.

"3. Do you think it was a US crime to frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will, and do you think Kerry should apologize for his part in making that happen?"

You failed to answer this question. I will just repeat this question as is. It is very clear.

"You don't give a damn about life in America or Iraq"

Actually I do. That's why I supported the end to the Iraqi holocaust. Did you?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,

"Given that he was only there for 4 months, can you tell me which date he was selected for this CIA operation that is seared in his brain? Has the Kerry campaign provided the alternative date? Is there any other witnesses? Who was involved in this CIA op?"
Do you say he wasn't in Cambodia? Why were you there? Like I said, you're talking bullshit again.

" In that case, can you please list the war crimes that he personally committed, and why was he not charged with them? It is illegal to obey an illegal order. Did he ask for the illegal order (if any) to be given to him in writing, prior to committing the crimes? "
More bullshit. Every front line soldier must do horrible things. He knows what he did and was ashamed, so ashamed he came back and told the US public about the mess in Viet Nam. That shows a decent human being. There was a guy at My Laia helicopter pilot who refused a direct order to kill women and children. He got death threats and sent on suicide missions after that. Man, you don't know shit from Shinola about the real world.

It was a US crime(Nixon) to keep the South Viet Namese people fighting for five years a hopeless war they couldn't win in a thousand years. John Kerry fought along side those South VietNamese in your precious war, should he apologize for that?
Your problem is that you have no conception of war or terrorism or anything. Iraqis, like the South VietNamese) are tired of war and tired of you and the mess your boy Bush has left in their laps.

"Actually I do. That's why I supported the end to the Iraqi holocaust. Did you?"
You don't think war itself is mass murder[a holocaust], and you're wrong about that. You love war. Your problem that Australia is too pathetic a country to fulfill your grandiose strategy--you think 'let the hyperpower do it'.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous, thanks for your reply. It is getting closer to the answers.

"1. Did Kerry lie when he said he was in Cambodia?"

You have not answered this question - you instead asked me if I was denying it. I am not denying or claiming he went to Cambodia. The problem is that HE claimed that HE went to Cambodia. This is a very unusual thing to do, since it was actually illegal for him to be there. So, I am merely trying to scientifically investigate his claim. The same as I would if someone claimed (and many do) to have seen the Loch Ness Monster. So, I just want either you or Kerry to fill in as many details of this alleged event as possible, so that I can make my own judgement on the issue.

"2. Did Kerry lie when he said that he had personally committed war crimes?"

You have failed to provide the list of war crimes he committed, and why he wasn't charged after having confessed to war crimes? You mentioned that someone from My Lai refused to obey orders. That is the correct thing to do. Regardless of the consequences, the honorable thing for a soldier to do is to disobey orders. Not carry them out like Kerry did. Brave soldiers do not commit war crimes, not even ones they were ordered to carry out. He should have refused, and then reported the illegal order to his chain of command and to anyone else. Not carry it out and then merely report it to the media. The person who gave the illegal orders needs to be charged. He needs to be identified. An investigation is required. I support the Vietnam war, but I do NOT support illegal orders, and I want anyone who gave or carried out illegal orders, including but not limited to Kerry, to be charged and convicted. Just like I want the people at Abu Graib charged and convicted.

"3. Do you think it was a US crime to frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will, and do you think Kerry should apologize for his part in making that happen?"

You still haven't answered this question. You instead conjectured that the war was unwinnable, not even in 1000 years. There is no way of knowing that, because it was never tried. We can see a model of a democratic South Korea, saved from the scourge of communism. South Vietnam was more difficult, but I can't see any reason why it should be unwinnable. Between 1972 and 1975 it looked good, the South Vietnamese were able to hold their own against the North. What they needed was financial and military support from the US to match what was being given to the North. This was not done, due to a Democrat-controlled Congress. So we'll never know what might have been. Regardless, this is not the question I asked. I asked what you thought about millions of South Vietnamese allies being frogmarched off to communist gulags AGAINST THEIR WILL. Is that a crime in itself? Yes or no? Was it a crime? If it was NOT a crime, then explain why. It seems to me that forcing people into gulags is a criminal act. Is it or isn't it?

"You don't think war itself is mass murder[a holocaust], and you're wrong about that. You love war."

I don't love war. I wanted Saddam to hand over the keys without a fight, ie without war. I hope that is what all the remaining dictators do. Or if they're not handing over the keys, then I hope they at least do what Gadaffi did and simply disarm. I was previously anxious to have a war with Libya. I no longer support that. So your charge is false.

And I don't consider war to be mass murder. I consider that to be the price required to end a war that the dictator had against his own people. Sometimes the perfect option (no death at all) is not available, and it is necessary to choose between the lesser of two evils. In this case, it is better to choose a once-off cost of accidental deaths, rather than the alternative, which was indefinite continuation of crime. Failing to end the Iraqi holocaust was the equivalent of refusing to call a policeman to stop a rape from occurring, because who knows, maybe the cop responding to the call will hit an innocent pedestrian. I don't know anyone so stupid that they do that, and allow a rape to continue. Do you? Would you personally allow a rape to continue unchecked? That certainly appears to be your attitude towards all the rapes done by the Iraqi government against the Iraqi people. Better to just let them continue.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
Some simple answers for a simple mind.
1. Yes, Kerry says he was in Cambodia. Why would he lie about being in Cambodia? Actually Nixon lied about not being in Cambodia if you remember.

2. I don't have a list of war crimes as I am not a bloody lawyer. What he did witness was mass bombings including civilians with napalm nd probably execution of suspected insurgents without trial. I know because it was on TV. Not being educated as a international lawyer I can't tell the legality of that, but to me that kind of thing 'looks' like a war crime. What was Kerry's reaction?.. to alert the US public about the dirty war. Your reaction?.. blame the whistleblower. 'Don't worry everything is going according to plan, etc'
You did'nt draw the correct conclusion from my story. This My Lai guy was threatened with death by this superiors if he even said anything--to you this is nothing (Iraqi people know about these kind of warnings). What planet do you live on?
"...but I do NOT support illegal orders, and I want anyone who gave or carried out illegal orders, including but not limited to Kerry, to be charged and convicted. Just like I want the people at Abu Graib charged and convicted."
You justify crimes committed in the name of democracy.

"3. Do you think it was a US crime to frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will, and do you think Kerry should apologize for his part in making that happen?"
Your question as posed is incorrect-a total lie. The US did not "frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will...It seems to me that forcing people into gulags is a criminal act. Is it or isn't it?" And is totally revisionist, the defeated South VietNam Army, civil officials, Huomgs,etc. got on boats and sailed of Viet Nam. Get it? They weren't put in gulag-prisons, they got on boats--they don't have boats in prisons. I know some Viet Namese boat people and what happened on that.
".. but I can't see any reason why it should be unwinnable. Between 1972 and 1975 it looked good, the South Vietnamese were able to hold their own against the North." Do you really know what you are talking about?
"This was not done, due to a Democrat-controlled Congress. So we'll never know what might have been." Your conjectures are acceptable, mine are not?

"I don't love war. ... I was previously anxious to have a war with Libya. I no longer support that. So your charge is false." You can type out of both sides of your keyboard. You love war, just ask anyone.

"And I don't consider war to be mass murder."
It has been since WW1( US Civil War??), where have you been?
"Failing to end the Iraqi holocaust was the equivalent of refusing to call a policeman to stop a rape from occurring, because who knows, maybe the cop responding to the call will hit an innocent pedestrian.I don't know anyone so stupid that they do that.." Yet you support Turkey's (and tried to justify Saddam's) suppression of the Kurds at Kurdo's to the shock of actual Kurdish victims who blog there.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"1. Yes, Kerry says he was in Cambodia."

Ok, can we have the evidence for this? I want him to fill in the details of who he was with etc. And whether this illegal order was given in writing.

"Why would he lie about being in Cambodia?"

Well, one theory suggests that he would lie about it because he was actively trying to undermine America's image, for reasons unknown. I want to discuss this to find his underlying motives. I can understand why the Soviets wanted to undermind America's image with complete lies, but not Kerry's. The first step is to establish whether he lied or not, before we start psychoanalyzing the reasons. So can you start off by giving me the supporting evidence.

"Actually Nixon lied about not being in Cambodia if you remember."

I don't know whether that was a lie or not. Kerry said it was a lie because he was there at the time. On Christmas. When Nixon wasn't even president.

"2. I don't have a list of war crimes as I am not a bloody lawyer."

I want a list from Kerry on all the crimes that he committed. Especially violations of the Geneva Convention. There is no excuse for these crimes. You can't say "I was only obeying orders".

"What he did witness was mass bombings including civilians with napalm and probably execution of suspected insurgents without trial. I know because it was on TV."

You saw Kerry on TV carrying out these things? Are you aware that I am specifically referring to Kerry's culpability as one of the people committing war crimes? There is probably a limited amount of crime he could have gotten up to on a swift boat. You don't napalm villages from a swift boat. So, I really need to know just how many crimes he managed to commit in 4 months and 11 days. This is when he's not otherwise occupied being a hero and all of course.

"Not being educated as a international lawyer I can't tell the legality of that, but to me that kind of thing 'looks' like a war crime."

First of all we need to establish whether Kerry did this, and whether or not he was ordered to do it, or whether he did it on his own volition.

"What was Kerry's reaction?.. to alert the US public about the dirty war. Your reaction?.. blame the whistleblower."

I'm not blaming him. I'm investigating the circumstances. First of all there is a question mark as to whether he committed any crimes at all. You say he did. But I think he probably didn't, otherwise he would have been charged. After we've established that, we can start arresting him and anyone up his chain of command who issued illegal orders.

"This My Lai guy was threatened with death by this superiors if he even said anything--to you this is nothing (Iraqi people know about these kind of warnings). What planet do you live on?"

It is a soldier's responsibility to ignore death threats and obey the Geneva Conventions. It is unpleasant, but this is what brave soldiers who win medals are supposed to do. He can also report the crime using his freedom of speech, as this My Lai guy obviously did. The system isn't perfect, but there are a reasonable number of checks and balances.

PE:"...but I do NOT support illegal orders, and I want anyone who gave or carried out illegal orders, including but not limited to Kerry, to be charged and convicted. Just like I want the people at Abu Graib charged and convicted."

"You justify crimes committed in the name of democracy."

I'm not sure what you mean by "justify". I am in agreement with charging violators of the Geneva Convention, according to the law. Whether it is the criminals in Abu Graib, or the criminal who is heading the Democrats ticket. Both should be prosecuted without fear or favour.

PE:"3. Do you think it was a US crime to frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will, and do you think Kerry should apologize for his part in making that happen?"

"Your question as posed is incorrect-a total lie. The US did not "frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will"

The US did not do this directly, that is true. But US inaction caused this to happen. So, was it a crime or not? Was the US inaction a crime? Were the circumstances that caused that inaction a crime?

"And is totally revisionist, the defeated South VietNam Army, civil officials, Huomgs,etc. got on boats and sailed of Viet Nam. Get it? They weren't put in gulag-prisons, they got on boats--they don't have boats in prisons."

Some went into gulags, some were killed, some went to neighbouring countries as refugees, some drowned in an attempt to get to other countries, and some made it to other countries. All this was a result of US inaction. Was it a crime or not?

PE:"Between 1972 and 1975 it looked good, the South Vietnamese were able to hold their own against the North."

"Do you really know what you are talking about?"

Yes. It happened just like I said.

PE:"This was not done, due to a Democrat-controlled Congress. So we'll never know what might have been."

"Your conjectures are acceptable, mine are not?"

I do not understand what you are talking about. Give me the two conjectures that you think I am treating differently.

PE:"I don't love war. ... I was previously anxious to have a war with Libya. I no longer support that. So your charge is false."

"You can type out of both sides of your keyboard. You love war, just ask anyone."

All I can do is show you the evidence that contradicts what you just said.

PE:"And I don't consider war to be mass murder."

"It has been since WW1( US Civil War??), where have you been?"

Well in that case, peace is mass murder too, given the number of people that Saddam killed. Where have you been?

PE:"Failing to end the Iraqi holocaust was the equivalent of refusing to call a policeman to stop a rape from occurring, because who knows, maybe the cop responding to the call will hit an innocent pedestrian.I don't know anyone so stupid that they do that.."

"Yet you support Turkey's (and tried to justify Saddam's) suppression of the Kurds at Kurdo's to the shock of actual Kurdish victims who blog there."

Turkey is not suppressing the Kurds. Saddam was oppressing everyone, including Kurds. The latter is not justified. The latter has recently been ended by the coalition. Thanks America!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Some simple answers for a simple mind.
1. Yes, Kerry says he was in Cambodia. Why would he lie about being in Cambodia? Actually Nixon lied about not being in Cambodia if you remember.

2. I don't have a list of war crimes as I am not a bloody lawyer. What he did witness was mass bombings including civilians with napalm nd probably execution of suspected insurgents without trial. I know because it was on TV. Not being educated as a international lawyer I can't tell the legality of that, but to me that kind of thing 'looks' like a war crime. What was Kerry's reaction?.. to alert the US public about the dirty war. Your reaction?.. blame the whistleblower. 'Don't worry everything is going according to plan, etc'
You did'nt draw the correct conclusion from my story. This My Lai guy was threatened with death by this superiors if he even said anything--to you this is nothing (Iraqi people know about these kind of warnings). What planet do you live on?
"...but I do NOT support illegal orders, and I want anyone who gave or carried out illegal orders, including but not limited to Kerry, to be charged and convicted. Just like I want the people at Abu Graib charged and convicted."
You justify crimes committed in the name of democracy.

"3. Do you think it was a US crime to frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will, and do you think Kerry should apologize for his part in making that happen?"
Your question as posed is incorrect-a total lie. The US did not "frogmarch millions of South Vietnamese allies off to communist gulags against their will...It seems to me that forcing people into gulags is a criminal act. Is it or isn't it?" And is totally revisionist, the defeated South VietNam Army, civil officials, Huomgs,etc. got on boats and sailed of Viet Nam. Get it? They weren't put in gulag-prisons, they got on boats--they don't have boats in prisons. I know some Viet Namese boat people and what happened on that.
".. but I can't see any reason why it should be unwinnable. Between 1972 and 1975 it looked good, the South Vietnamese were able to hold their own against the North." Do you really know what you are talking about?
"This was not done, due to a Democrat-controlled Congress. So we'll never know what might have been." Your conjectures are acceptable, mine are not?

"I don't love war. ... I was previously anxious to have a war with Libya. I no longer support that. So your charge is false." You can type out of both sides of your keyboard. You love war, just ask anyone.

"And I don't consider war to be mass murder."
It has been since WW1( US Civil War??), where have you been?
"Failing to end the Iraqi holocaust was the equivalent of refusing to call a policeman to stop a rape from occurring, because who knows, maybe the cop responding to the call will hit an innocent pedestrian.I don't know anyone so stupid that they do that.." Yet you support Turkey's (and tried to justify Saddam's) suppression of the Kurds at Kurdo's to the shock of actual Kurdish victims who blog there.
MLE,
"Ok, can we have the evidence for this?
You have the word of a highly decorated US veteran, isn't that enough?
"I want him to fill in the details of who he was with etc. And whether this illegal order was given in writing."
Beggers can't be choosers, email the campaign at let me know how far you get.
" The first step is to establish whether he lied or not, before we start psychoanalyzing the reasons." One bit of evidence was that he was in South VietNam at the time on the Mekong river close to the border. A black ops action would not be documented, I suggest you email Rumsfeld to search the Pentagon for you.

"Actually Nixon lied about not being in Cambodia if you remember."
I don't know whether that was a lie or not.
No, this was a big giant Kissinger lie that everyone in the USA knows is a fact. Read a book?The 'incursion' caused the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
"Kerry said it was a lie because he was there at the time. On Christmas. When Nixon wasn't even president."
We talked about the time/date thing before. No big deal.
"I want a list from Kerry on all the crimes that he committed."
After hearing a bit more on TV, Kerry did not engage in the actual crimes, but reported on things he had heard about. You should review his allegations and investigate the culprits. Earlier you had said that 'Kerry had admitted to war crimes" and I accepted that lie of yours, my mistake.

"You saw Kerry on TV carrying out these things?"
No, I saw people getting burned with napalm and suspects being executed in the streets, everyone did. Thery are the most famous photos from the Viet Nam war.
Are you aware that I am specifically referring to Kerry's culpability as one of the people committing war crimes? See above clarification.
"This is when he's not otherwise occupied being a hero and all of course.
He is a hero who saved a man's life, which means not a whit to you. Have you ever saved anyone's life? I have.

"First of all we need to establish whether Kerry did this, and whether or not he was ordered to do it, or whether he did it on his own volition."
All this crap was generated by your allegation.

"I'm not blaming him. I'm investigating the circumstances. First of all there is a question mark as to whether he committed any crimes at all. You say he did."
Again, you said he did I believed you.
"But I think he probably didn't, otherwise he would have been charged."

"It is a soldier's responsibility to ignore death threats and obey the Geneva Conventions. It is unpleasant, but this is what brave soldiers who win medals are supposed to do."
They don't give out medals for whistleblowing, moron.
"He can also report the crime using his freedom of speech, as this My Lai guy obviously did."
Wrong again, idiot. The My Lai guy only told about it in the late 1990s and he did get a commendation eventually. In war there is not freedom of speech.
"The system isn't perfect, but there are a reasonable number of checks and balances."
You have no idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by "justify".You justify wars of aggression,and their consequences,carried out in the name of democracy.

"The US did not do this directly, that is true. But US inaction caused this to happen.[where's your evidence?] So, was it a crime or not? Was the US inaction a crime? Were the circumstances that caused that inaction a crime?" Is your hesitation with dealing with Darfur, Zimbabwe a crime?

"Some went into gulags, some were killed, some went to neighbouring countries as refugees, some drowned in an attempt to get to other countries, and some made it to other countries. All this was a result of US inaction. Was it a crime or not?"
Where is your evidence?

"Yes. It happened just like I said....This was not done, due to a Democrat-controlled Congress. So we'll never know what might have been." ..."I do not understand what you are talking about. Give me the two conjectures that you think I am treating differently."
I'll give you two. 'The war was lost[my conjecture], 'The war might have been won[your hypothetical conjecture-i.e. never happened]'.
"All I can do is show you the evidence that contradicts what you just said."
What evidence have you shown?
"Well in that case, peace is mass murder too, given the number of people that Saddam killed. Where have you been?" Nope, that's a logical fallacy called 'denying the antecedent'. 'War is mass murder' and 'Saddam can commit mass murder in peacetime' are both be true. You like to defend wars.

"Turkey is not suppressing the Kurds." Among other things,Kurds can be arrested for speaking Kurdish in Turkey.
"Saddam was oppressing everyone, including Kurds. The latter is not justified."
Gibberish.
"The latter has recently been ended by the coalition. Thanks America!"
The only people who can evaluate America's OIF are the Iraqis and Kurdish customer's of US hospitality, and they rarely say that. Your ringing endorsement 'rings' hollow.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous, there is some confusion as to whether Kerry committed war crimes or not. I can't get a straight answer from the Kerry side about this. I'll let Kerry speak for himself:

http://www.wintersoldier.com/audio/kerry2.mp3

Now, I'm basically after clarification on this.

"The US did not do this directly, that is true. But US inaction caused this to happen.[where's your evidence?]"

NVA tanks rolling into South Vietnam. What more do you need?

PE:"So, was it a crime or not? Was the US inaction a crime? Were the circumstances that caused that inaction a crime?"

"Is your hesitation with dealing with Darfur, Zimbabwe a crime?"

No, there's a good reason for inaction. There are too many warfronts open already. BTW, I do want to topple the Sudanese regime now, I want to take the risk of yet another warfront open, but I can understand why others don't. Anyway, now, your turn. Answer whether it was a US crime to abandon a whole lot of allies to communist gulags.

"I'll give you two. 'The war was lost[my conjecture]"

"'The war might have been won[your hypothetical conjecture-i.e. never happened]'"

And? What's wrong? The usual way to win wars is with money and weapons. It's a time-honoured process. This was not tried. Between 1972-1975 there was insufficient money and arms supplied to the SVA allies because the Democrats controlling Congress wouldn't allow it. This is not speculation, this is fact. The NVA were resupplied by USSR. Not conjecture, fact. There is no reason why NVA tanks couldn't be destroyed by a properly trained and equipped army, or by US air power. The evidence for this was all the previous NVA tanks destroyed when they entered South Vietnam. I'm not sure what more you want. NVA tanks beat SVA tanks. If US airpower had been deployed, the NVA tanks would almost certainly have been destroyed. This was a conventional war. The US could not have been beaten on the battlefield by the NVA tanks. It never happened throughout the history of the Vietnam War.

"The only people who can evaluate America's OIF are the Iraqis and Kurdish customer's of US hospitality, and they rarely say that."

Things like that are never 100%. Most Iraqis wanted Saddam deposed. It has been done. Some have said thankyou already. I'm happy and they're happy. I'm happy to do it just to stop Ali, Ays and Sarmad from being oppressed. They have the right to not be oppressed. No worries guys - anytime!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
Bush has praised Kerry's service records. If you manage to find evidence of war crimes, I'm move to impeach Bush for lying[ignorance even George's, is no excuse!].
I am still astonished at the way you were able to mislead me about Kerry's statement. Your reputation for veracity is trash.

"NVA tanks rolling into South Vietnam. What more do you need?" What about Soviet tanks in Budapest?
Was that a war crime? You'll have to do better than that.
"No, there's a good reason for inaction. There are too many warfronts open already."
It was throwing money and men down a rat hole.
Was abandoning Somalia a war crime?
"BTW, I do want to topple the Sudanese regime now, I want to take the risk of yet another warfront open, but I can understand why others don't."Your love of war again?
"Anyway, now, your turn. Answer whether it was a US crime to abandon a whole lot of allies to communist gulags."
There you go again..America help me, help me..pathetic..Why didn't Australia pick up the slack? Our help is not always necessary, check out the majority of Iraqis or South Korean students.
"And? What's wrong? The usual way to win wars is with money and weapons. It's a time-honoured process. This was not tried."
A lie, it was tried for over ten years, 'God helps them who help themselves'. South VietNam gave up(collapsed).

"Between 1972-1975 there was 'insufficient' money and arms supplied to the SVA allies because the Democrats controlling Congress wouldn't allow it."
Where's your evidence, not conjecture, that more money would have made the difference.
"The NVA were resupplied by USSR. Not conjecture, fact."
Big deal. If the Soviets and China cut off all aid NVA would still have won. Can you disprove this?
"There is no reason why NVA tanks couldn't be destroyed by a properly trained and equipped army, or by US air power." Nice touch, I'll send a letter of complaint to the descendents of Curtis LeMay-you would have thought that after practicing strategic bombing for 30 years the US would know how to do it right.
"The evidence for this was all the previous NVA tanks destroyed when they entered South Vietnam."
Gibberish, not evidence, not even a statistic.
"If US airpower had been deployed, the NVA tanks would almost certainly have been destroyed." They tried carpet bombing in Viet Nam...it failed, they even tried to remove the jungle with toxic Agent Orange(a manifest war crime) it also failed. You haven't proven this statement by a mile.
"This was a conventional war. The US could not have been beaten on the battlefield by the NVA tanks. It never happened throughout the history of the Vietnam War." Which tank battles are you refering to... El Alemain, Tobruck or Kursk? It was a guerilla war when US troops were around, when they left the tanks came it. The US could not defeat these guerillas and NVA infiltrators--the US failed to win that war. Believe it or not guerilla wars can be sucessful.
"Things like that are never 100%. Most Iraqis wanted Saddam deposed." Of course, but they didn't want the bloody occupation. We didn't have to stay after Saddam was captured.
"I'm happy to do it just to stop Ali, Ays and Sarmad from being oppressed." You? you [Oz] didn't do anything at all. You're along for the ride like Mongolia and Latvia. Stop trying to take credit for something.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous, "Bush has praised Kerry's service records. If you manage to find evidence of war crimes, I'm move to impeach Bush for lying[ignorance even George's, is no excuse!]."

Bush is probably actually correct. I don't think Kerry committed war crimes. The problem is, he said he did. Either he is a liar, and I want to know why (motive) he lied about that, or he is a war criminal. It needs to be established one way or the other.

"I am still astonished at the way you were able to mislead me about Kerry's statement. Your reputation for veracity is trash."

Did you listen to the mp3 I sent you a link to? It sounded pretty clear to me.

"What about Soviet tanks in Budapest? Was that a war crime? You'll have to do better than that."

It was not possible to win that war without it going nuclear. It was too much risk to take. The trick was to bleed the USSR economically. By forcing them to spend more and more on their military. This was done. Vietnam was one theatre where they were bled dry.

"It was throwing money and men down a rat hole."

Nope. It actually achieved the objective. The Vietnamese had taken over the job by 1972 so it wasn't even US personnel dying. They had internal control, and some ability to defend external armoured attack. Just not enough, because the USSR was outspending the US.

"Was abandoning Somalia a war crime?"

No, there was no obvious side to pick and support.

PE:"Anyway, now, your turn. Answer whether it was a US crime to abandon a whole lot of allies to communist gulags."

"There you go again..America help me, help me..pathetic..Why didn't Australia pick up the slack?"

This is a fair comment. Australia at the time had started to believe the American rhetoric that the US were the aggressors and committing war crimes, because of people like Kerry reporting that there were systematic human rights abuses occurring. If Australia hadn't been lied to, I hope that we would have continued to supply air cover to the SVA, which was exactly what they needed.

"Our help is not always necessary, check out the majority of Iraqis or South Korean students."

South Korea doesn't need US help anymore to defend their country, that is correct. North Korea is no longer getting supplied by the USSR.

PE:"And? What's wrong? The usual way to win wars is with money and weapons. It's a time-honoured process. This was not tried."

"A lie, it was tried for over ten years,"

South Vietnam was secure all that time.

"'God helps them who help themselves'. South VietNam gave up(collapsed)."

No it didn't. It was invaded by NVA tanks. It had no ability to match USSR spending.

PE:"Between 1972-1975 there was 'insufficient' money and arms supplied to the SVA allies because the Democrats controlling Congress wouldn't allow it."

"Where's your evidence, not conjecture, that more money would have made the difference."

There were soldiers moonlighting, due to lack of funding, that is a simple fact. Money would have ended the need for this, and the subsequent desertions. This is not conjecture.

The other thing that was required was the arms that could have taken out NVA tanks. You need to understand something about warfare to know why arms help win wars.

PE:"The NVA were resupplied by USSR. Not conjecture, fact."

"Big deal. If the Soviets and China cut off all aid NVA would still have won. Can you disprove this?"

You're the one making the statement. You need to prove it. There is no way to prove something like this without actually trying it. The fact is, the USSR supplied arms. We never got to see what happened if they weren't supplied arms/aid.

PE:"There is no reason why NVA tanks couldn't be destroyed by a properly trained and equipped army, or by US air power."

"Nice touch, I'll send a letter of complaint to the descendents of Curtis LeMay-you would have thought that after practicing strategic bombing for 30 years the US would know how to do it right."

They do know how to do it. The NVA never won a single military victory against the US. One of those was needed again in 1975.

PE:"The evidence for this was all the previous NVA tanks destroyed when they entered South Vietnam."

"Gibberish, not evidence, not even a statistic."

Pardon? You think there were NVA tanks in South Vietnam in 1972 while the US was still there?

PE:"If US airpower had been deployed, the NVA tanks would almost certainly have been destroyed."

"They tried carpet bombing in Viet Nam...it failed, they even tried to remove the jungle with toxic Agent Orange(a manifest war crime) it also failed. You haven't proven this statement by a mile."

This was an attempt to get guerillas. The tanks were easily destroyed.

"This was a conventional war. The US could not have been beaten on the battlefield by the NVA tanks. It never happened throughout the history of the Vietnam War."

"Which tank battles are you refering to... El Alemain, Tobruck or Kursk? It was a guerilla war when US troops were around, when they left the tanks came it."

Exactly. The SVA could take care of the guerillas, but the US was required to put down an external attack by NVA attacks. Do you understand this concept now? That's why the war was lost. External tank invasion. The US has never been beaten by enemy tanks before. It simply requires superior air power, which was avaiable.

"The US could not defeat these guerillas and NVA infiltrators--the US failed to win that war. Believe it or not guerilla wars can be sucessful."

Not in this instance. The SVA had everything under control internally. It was the external non-guerilla stuff they couldn't handle.

PE:"Things like that are never 100%. Most Iraqis wanted Saddam deposed."

"Of course, but they didn't want the bloody occupation. We didn't have to stay after Saddam was captured."

I see. So your problem is with the peacekeeping, not the initial war? Ok, well don't worry, the remaining countries will not require peacekeeping. The old army can be reused.

PE:"I'm happy to do it just to stop Ali, Ays and Sarmad from being oppressed."

"You? you [Oz] didn't do anything at all. You're along for the ride like Mongolia and Latvia. Stop trying to take credit for something."

We did so do something. We supplied 2000 SAS, which were able to capture bases intact. This is the future model in my opinion. In Iran, the bases just need to be captured one at a time by the Australian SAS.

Anyway, it is interesting that in Vietnam your main complaint is not that the South Vietnamese were wrong to try to stop the commies from subjugating them, but that the US should be isolationist. Well, let me tell you that even if there were no South Vietnamese at all, it was all barren land devoid of people, the USSR should have been denied access to Camh Ranh Bay in the middle of the Cold War. You should not surrender facilities like this to the enemy.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Kerry never said he personally committed any war crimes.

These swift boat vets for truth should be sued for defamation of character. The Navy has backed up John Kerry on all counts so what's all the beef about? Or should I say "bull"

Bush has been compared to Hitler on many occasions.
Gee, who would make a better president? My bet's on Kerry.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Kerry never said he personally committed any war crimes"

Yes he did. Did you listen to that mp3 link I gave you? He clearly says that he personally committed war crimes. I think he was lying. I doubt he committed any war crimes at all. He just wanted to discredit the US by saying that he and his comrades were routinely committing war crimes, when I doubt he witnessed any such thing, much less did it himself.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
I am bothering to respond because I naively think that you are capable of understanding the real world and are capable of adjusting your warloving viewpoint to match reality.

"Bush is probably actually correct. I don't think Kerry committed war crimes. The problem is, he said he did. Either he is a liar, and I want to know why (motive) he lied about that, or he is a war criminal. It needs to be established one way or the other."
I want to know why you haven't been able to process the fact that Kerry is not a war criminal and never claimed to be one! Your mind appears slow to make adjustments.

"Did you listen to the mp3 I sent you a link to? It sounded pretty clear to me."
No, I don't listen to any mp3 files as I lost my speakers. I am not very aural anyways.
'It was not possible to win that war without it going nuclear.... Vietnam was one theatre where they were bled dry.
You didn't answer my question, was it a war crime? Your answer must be yes, but reality trumps morality-same in Viet Nam.

"The Vietnamese had taken over the job by 1972[wrong, ARVN troops attempted to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail and were massacred, their army was totally overmatched-ARVN never beat the NVA] so it wasn't even US personnel dying. They had internal control, and some ability to defend external armoured attack. Just not enough, because the USSR was outspending the US."
Not true, by the Paris Peace Accord NVA troops were allowed to remain in SVN.
"President Thieu, once again threatened by Nixon with a total cut-off of American aid to South Vietnam... Thieu labels the terms "tantamount to surrender" for South Vietnam." So NVA troops were left in SVN by Nixon in 1973. ARVN could never beat these troops therefore the war was actually lost in 1973. The Paris Peace accord was reluctantly signed by NV because of the desperate strategic bombing by Nixon. The whole point of that process was to secure Nixon's reelection as Kissinger said. The only thing that kept the SV going was Nixon's threat to level Hanoi with b52 strikes, i.e. ARVN was worthless, it was never viable, it lost every battle. When the American public realized that they refused to through any money down a rat hole and didn't feel like unleashing genocide on Hanoi.
"No, there was no obvious side to pick and support." In Viet Nam, we bet on a clear loser.

PE:"Anyway, now, your turn. Answer whether it was a US crime to abandon a whole lot of allies to communist gulags."
South VietNam was a puppet phantom not a real ally. The NLF(Viet Cong) was always more popular than the US puppets. Actually it is not a war crime to abandon puppets but making war on a sovereign country is a war crime. Sorry, but that's international law.

"This is a fair comment. Australia at the time had started to believe the American rhetoric that the US were the aggressors and committing war crimes, because of people like Kerry reporting that there were systematic human rights abuses occurring. If Australia hadn't been lied to, I hope that we would have continued to supply air cover to the SVA, which was exactly what they needed."
Kerry's testimony took place during the outrageous war crime of the US/ARVN invasion and overthow of the neutral Cambodian government. He wanted to end the unstoppable 'war machine' sent to prop up a feeble puppet government, before it expanded the war further.

"South Korea doesn't need US help anymore to defend their country, that is correct. North Korea is no longer getting supplied by the USSR."
So you agree with Bush on this one? Luckily for them,NK has a nuclear bomb.


"South Vietnam was secure all that time." Totally wrong, read a book, Dilbert.

"No it didn't. It was invaded by NVA tanks. It had no ability to match USSR spending." Wrong, the NVA was already there per the Paris Peace accord. ARVN couldn't win a single battle. NVA was just waiting for the US to finally back off.
It was Ford.."US President Gerald Ford, speaking in New Orleans, announces that as far as the US is concerned, the Vietnam War is "finished."

PE:"Between 1972-1975 there was 'insufficient' money and arms supplied to the SVA allies because the Democrats controlling Congress wouldn't allow it."
No one wanted to send money down a rathole.

"Money would have ended the need for this, and the subsequent desertions. This is not conjecture."
See above. Your lack of real life experience with money is showing.

"The other thing that was required was the arms that could have taken out NVA tanks. You need to understand something about warfare to know why arms help win wars." US tanks given to KMT didn't help in China in 1949. Dien Bien Phu showed the power of guerilla armies against Western professionals you worship.

"You're the one making the statement. You need to prove it. There is no way to prove something like this without actually trying it. The fact is, the USSR supplied arms. We never got to see what happened if they weren't supplied arms/aid." The entire aim of Nixon's 'detaint'was to isolate NV by courting China and even USSR tried to pressure NV to negotiate. NVA wanted to win more than SVA and thatwas always clear.


"They do know how to do it. The NVA never won a single military victory against the US. One of those was needed again in 1975." NVA was also never defeated by the US(driven out of SV), it was a draw.

"Pardon? You think there were NVA tanks in South Vietnam in 1972 while the US was still there?" There were according the the Paris Accord/'ceasefire'as noted above.

"This was an attempt to get guerillas. The tanks were easily destroyed." Gibberish, again.

"This was a conventional war. The US could not have been beaten on the battlefield by the NVA tanks. It never happened throughout the history of the Vietnam War." The US won all the military victories-but lost the war, curious, no? Find the missing part of the puzzle.

"The SVA could take care of the guerillas, but the US was required to put down an external attack by NVA attacks.
Wrong, the NLF was never defeated by ARVN-read a book. They were there thoughout the whole war.
"External tank invasion. The US has never been beaten by enemy tanks before. It simply requires superior air power, which was avaiable." Feeble ARVN was beaten by NLF and NVA, who expected more resistance. So the US public should have waged a war of extermination against NVA to save the feeble South? We should commit mass murder for our puppets? I don't think so.
Not in this instance. The SVA had everything under control internally." You say the same about Iraq..everything is under control..BULLSHIT!
"I see. So your problem is with the peacekeeping, not the initial war? Ok, well don't worry, the remaining countries will not require peacekeeping. The old army can be reused."
What I say is that the war was not justified legally and we should vacate the premises as soon as possible, saying 'Excuse me, Sorry',etc.

"We supplied 2000 SAS, which were able to capture bases intact." This is the future model in my opinion. So war is just a matter of occupying marginally defended bases, 'What heroism'! You love war, because you don't understand it.
"Anyway, it is interesting that in Vietnam your main complaint is not that the South Vietnamese were wrong to try to stop the commies from subjugating them, but that the US should be isolationist." I didn't say that-you smoke a lot of weed?
"Well, let me tell you that even if there were no South Vietnamese at all, it was all barren land devoid of people, the USSR should have been denied access to Camh Ranh Bay in the middle of the Cold War. You should not surrender facilities like this to the enemy.
Anyway, it is interesting that in Vietnam your main complaint is not 10 years of death, illegal invasions and mass destruction, but loss of a valuable port facility.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous, "No, I don't listen to any mp3 files as I lost my speakers. I am not very aural anyways."

Ask someone else to listen to it. John Kerry clearly says he committed war crimes, just like lots of other Americans. I think he was lying.

PE:"The Vietnamese had taken over the job by 1972"

"[wrong, ARVN troops attempted to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail and were massacred, their army was totally overmatched-ARVN never beat the NVA]"

The US left in 1972. Ergo, the Vietnamese had taken over the job. End of story.

"So NVA troops were left in SVN by Nixon in 1973. ARVN could never beat these troops therefore the war was actually lost in 1973."

South Vietnam was NOT lost in 1973. It took tanks in 1975 to beat them. This is not conjecture, this is historic fact.

"The Paris Peace accord was reluctantly signed by NV because of the desperate strategic bombing by Nixon."

It wasn't desperate. It was the proper way to fight the war. The NVA should have had its heavy equipment and logistical support base destroyed. This was the way to protect the South Vietnamese.

"When the American public realized that they refused to through any money down a rat hole"

It was not a rat hole. It was forcing the USSR to throw money down a rat hole too. The Cold War was won via economic warfare. Modern wars are actually economic.

"and didn't feel like unleashing genocide on Hanoi."

So instead the genocide was done against the South Vietnamese? Why the compassion for the commies instead of the capitalists? Unbelievable.

"In Viet Nam, we bet on a clear loser."

No, we bet on the non-fanatical side. It takes time for non-fanatics to organize properly. This is what South Korea has done. It is now a kick-arse military and can demolish the North.

PE:"Anyway, now, your turn. Answer whether it was a US crime to abandon a whole lot of allies to communist gulags."

"South VietNam was a puppet phantom not a real ally."

It was not a puppet. It was not installed by the US and it's policies were not set by the US. You have to say such disparaging things in order to justify sending a whole lot of peaceful Vietnamese off to commie gulags to die. Genocide basically. Genocide of capitalists.

"The NLF(Viet Cong) was always more popular than the US puppets."

No it wasn't. You made that up too. In addition, they had been effectively wiped out after Tet. It was all over as far as the internal struggle was concerned. All they needed to do was keep the external forces out.

"Actually it is not a war crime to abandon puppets but making war on a sovereign country is a war crime. Sorry, but that's international law."

If that is international law, then international law should be changed. People should not be massacred just because they are capitalist. It is perfectly natural to be capitalist. People have a natural right to peacefully make a living, without having fanatical communists sending them to gulags.

"Kerry's testimony took place during the outrageous war crime of the US/ARVN invasion and overthow of the neutral Cambodian government."

Kerry's testimony had nothing to do with Cambodia. It had all to do with war crimes against the Vietnamese people. Rape, chopping off ears, etc etc. War crimes that he had never seen, nor done himself. But he made it look like since he was there, he saw it all. And if you ask someone to listen to the MP3, you can see that he explicitly stated that he committed war crimes personally.

"He wanted to end the unstoppable 'war machine' sent to prop up a feeble puppet government, before it expanded the war further."

It wasn't about propping up a puppet government. It was about protecting Vietnamese from communist gulags, and preventing the USSR from gaining strategic assets or emboldening them.

PE:"South Korea doesn't need US help anymore to defend their country, that is correct. North Korea is no longer getting supplied by the USSR."

"So you agree with Bush on this one? Luckily for them,NK has a nuclear bomb."

If I thought they had a nuclear bomb, I would preemptively wipe them out using nuclear weapons.

PE:"South Vietnam was secure all that time."

"Totally wrong, read a book, Dilbert."

It was secure from internal rebellion.

PE:"The other thing that was required was the arms that could have taken out NVA tanks. You need to understand something about warfare to know why arms help win wars."

"US tanks given to KMT didn't help in China in 1949."

The KMT didn't fight the war according to how the US told them it needed to be fought, so they lost.

"Dien Bien Phu showed the power of guerilla armies against Western professionals you worship."

Winning a single battle does not win a war. It was NVA ***TANKS*** that beat the SVA, it was NOT GUERILLAS.

"NVA wanted to win more than SVA and that was always clear."

This is the nature of fanatics. Fanatics can be countered with US technology. It was all available and all doable.

PE:"They do know how to do it. The NVA never won a single military victory against the US. One of those was needed again in 1975."

"NVA was also never defeated by the US(driven out of SV), it was a draw."

All you need to do is keep the tanks out, and the guerillas don't stand a chance in modern warfare.

PE:"Pardon? You think there were NVA tanks in South Vietnam in 1972 while the US was still there?"

"There were according the the Paris Accord/'ceasefire'as noted above."

TANKS??? What else? Aircraft carriers?

"The US won all the military victories-but lost the war, curious, no? Find the missing part of the puzzle."

It failed to fight in 1975 when the NVA tanks were rolling into South Vietnam. If the US had done the right thing, it would have destroyed those tanks, and then wiped out the infrastructure in North Vietnam. Do that a few times and the commies will find something better to do. Like discovering capitalism.

"So the US public should have waged a war of extermination against NVA to save the feeble South?"

Yes.

"We should commit mass murder for our puppets?"

They aren't puppets, and it isn't mass murder. Mass murder was what the NVA did to the south. Why don't you care about the mass murder done by the communists, which was in fact the alternative you chose.

"You say the same about Iraq..everything is under control..BULLSHIT!"

It is under control. Those glorious guerillas have no chance of overthrowing the government. Which means, given sufficient time, they will be defeated. The only thing that remains is to replace the US troops with Iraqis. This is going to happen sooner than you think.

"What I say is that the war was not justified legally and we should vacate the premises as soon as possible, saying 'Excuse me, Sorry',etc."

Iraq's war against Kuwait was not justified legally. And nor should Saddam's holocaust against his own people be justifiable legally. It was time for Saddam to pay the price for his own illegality.

"So war is just a matter of occupying marginally defended bases, 'What heroism'! You love war, because you don't understand it."

You don't understand. It's not about heroism. It's about creating institutional changes. The bases aren't "marginally defended" and they don't need to be occupied either. They just need to be liberated or destroyed.

"Anyway, it is interesting that in Vietnam your main complaint is not 10 years of death, illegal invasions and mass destruction, but loss of a valuable port facility."

Not just loss of the port - transfer of ownership of the port to the enemy. PLUS genocide against capitalist allies, the survivors of which who were basically forced to work for the enemy.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"Ask someone else to listen to it. John Kerry clearly says he committed war crimes, just like lots of other Americans. I think he was lying."

Like I give a rat's ass about your 'opinion', prove it or you're just slandering like Bush's lying Swift Boat Vets.

"The US left in 1972. Ergo, the Vietnamese had taken over the job. End of story...South Vietnam was NOT lost in 1973. It took tanks in 1975 to beat them. This is not conjecture, this is historic fact."
Wrong, of course. When the Paris agreement to end the Vietnam War was announced on Jan. 24, 1973, Thieu warned his people to be vigilant "because peace does not mean a long-lasting peace. I tell you that I believe this is solely a cease-fire agreement, no more, no less." Please read a book.

"It was not a rat hole. It was forcing the USSR to throw money down a rat hole too."
You're contradicting yourself, but does that really matter?

"So instead the genocide was done against the South Vietnamese? "
Please review the UN definition of genocide I sent you previously.

"It was not a puppet. It was not installed by the US and it's policies were not set by the US."

As to SV being puppets, this is correct-strongman Diem was assasinated during Kennedy for screwing up, replaced by Major General Ky( "I have only one (hero): Hitler.")in a coup, replaced by General Thieu.'The South Vietnamese government also antagonized many of its citizens with its suppression of political opposition, through such measures as holding large numbers of political prisoners, torturing political opponents, and holding a one-man election for President[your idea of democracy, I guess] in 1971.' Pure puppetry.


"In addition, they had been effectively wiped out after Tet."
'The VC was not broken by the Tet Offensive but it was severely crippled by it.' The actual offensive was of an estimated 85,000 NLF of which the U claimed 45000 were killed. That leaves at least 40000 NLF left by US count.

"If that is international law, then international law should be changed."
Except that you don't believe in international law e.g. OIF.
People should not be massacred just because they are capitalist. It is perfectly natural to be capitalist.
Nonsense, what Viet Namese capitalists are you talking about, it was a third world country! They were anti-communist Catholics mainly.


"Kerry's testimony had nothing to do with Cambodia. It had all to do with war crimes against the Vietnamese people. Rape, chopping off ears, etc etc. War crimes that he had never seen, nor done himself."
At that time 1971, Nixon had his not-so-secret war in Cambodia. That had something to do with anti-war feelings at the time. It was that incursion that really got the anti-war movement going, even more than Tet.
"It wasn't about propping up a puppet government."
See description of US puppets, Generals Ky and Thieu above.

"If I thought they had a nuclear bomb, I would preemptively wipe them out using nuclear weapons."
Better tell Georgie Boy because he does think they have nuclear weapons.

"It was secure from internal rebellion."
'Another Nixon innovation was the secret Phoenix Program. Vietnamese were trained by the CIA to infiltrate peasant communities and discover the names of NLF sympathisers. When they had been identified, Death Squads were sent in to execute them. Between 1968 and 1971, an estimated 40,974 members of of the NLF were killed in this way. It was hoped that the Phoenix Program would result in the destruction of the NLF organisation, but, as on previous occasions, the NLF was able to replace its losses by recruiting from the local population and by arranging for volunteers to be sent from North Vietnam.'
So your internal security required large scale death squads a la Saddam Hussein. You justify mass murder in the name of democracy as usual.


"Winning a single battle does not win a war. It was NVA ***TANKS*** that beat the SVA, it was NOT GUERILLAS."
You really like tanks don't you. The guerrilla forces NLF in Viet Nam survived and everyone else knows it.

"This is the nature of fanatics. Fanatics can be countered with US technology. It was all available and all doable."
Poppycock, mi lud.
"All you need to do is keep the tanks out, and the guerillas don't stand a chance in modern warfare...TANKS??? What else? Aircraft carriers?."
Who won the latest battle of Najaf? There is more to war than your hi-tech weaponry.
"It failed to fight in 1975 when the NVA tanks were rolling into South Vietnam. If the US had done the right thing, it would have destroyed those tanks, and then wiped out the infrastructure in North Vietnam....Yes.
"
To win in South Viet Nam after 1975 we needed to invade North Viet Nam? Logical. To win in South Korea we needed to invade North Korea? But that's not what happened in either case. Two highly improbable claims.
"They aren't puppets, and it isn't mass murder."
Wrong.
"Why don't you care about the mass murder done by the communists, which was in fact the alternative you chose."
I do care, so unlike you I bothered to looked the figures up.
It is estimated that 200,000 long term prisoners were held in detention after 1975(of which there are 2000 today), one source says that 65,000 were executed. There were 500000 boat people of which 15% died at sea.
Well, the pacification Phoenix program killed 41,000 so that is about two thirds .The South Vietnamese government
denied that it held any political prisoners, despite the fact that approximately 100,000 civilians were imprisoned as inmates in 41 detention facilities for civilians.
Looks like SVN had about half the political prisoners of NVN, about the same number of 'executions in the South. No boat people though. Looks like both sides are comparable in criminality don't it?
"It is under control. Those glorious guerillas have no chance of overthrowing the government. Which means, given sufficient time, they will be defeated. The only thing that remains is to replace the US troops with Iraqis. This is going to happen sooner than you think."
So when will the Iraqi government crush the Al-Medhi? Wake me up when they start the firing squads.
"Iraq's war against Kuwait was not justified legally."
But Bush's attack on a sovereign nation is?
"And nor should Saddam's holocaust against his own people be justifiable legally. It was time for Saddam to pay the price for his own illegality."
Du-uh.Saddam is under control(of course). So when are you arranging Bush's trial?

"You don't understand. It's not about heroism. It's about creating institutional changes."
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori--are you a man or a computer? You know nothing about war.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Anonymous

PE:"Ask someone else to listen to it. John Kerry clearly says he committed war crimes, just like lots of other Americans. I think he was lying."

"Like I give a rat's ass about your 'opinion', prove it or you're just slandering like Bush's lying Swift Boat Vets."

It is not my obligation to prove that Kerry was lying about being a war criminal. If he was not lying, then he is indeed a war criminal, and should be put in jail. I will be happy if that is done. If he was lying about being a war criminal, then I want him to be hung for treason. Then I will be happy too. I just need it clarified one way or the other, so that he either gets jailed or hung. Or possibly hung or hung, depending on exactly what he did as part of his war crimes.

"When the Paris agreement to end the Vietnam War was announced on Jan. 24, 1973, Thieu warned his people to be vigilant "because peace does not mean a long-lasting peace. I tell you that I believe this is solely a cease-fire agreement, no more, no less."

He was correct. And sure enough, the tanks came rumbling over in 1975. However, South Vietnam was secure from internal rebellion.

PE:"It was not a rat hole. It was forcing the USSR to throw money down a rat hole too."

"You're contradicting yourself, but does that really matter?"

Well, it's not a rat hole when you are having an economic war with the Soviet Union. That is exactly how to win an economic war.

"As to SV being puppets, this is correct-strongman Diem was assasinated during Kennedy for screwing up, replaced by Major General Ky( "I have only one (hero): Hitler.")in a coup, replaced by General Thieu.'"

This is not puppets. This is just internal military coups. This happens a lot in 3rd world countries. That doesn't make any of them US puppets.

"The South Vietnamese government also antagonized many of its citizens with its suppression of political opposition, through such measures as holding large numbers of political prisoners, torturing political opponents, and holding a one-man election for President[your idea of democracy, I guess] in 1971.' Pure puppetry."

No. This just makes them local dictators. So you have to make a choice about whether a capitalist dictator is better than a communist dictator. In the middle of the Cold War, the answer to this is very simple.

"'The VC was not broken by the Tet Offensive but it was severely crippled by it.' The actual offensive was of an estimated 85,000 NLF of which the U claimed 45000 were killed. That leaves at least 40000 NLF left by US count."

So? A number so small that the South Vietnamese were able to control them by themselves, so long as they didn't have to deal with large-scale external threats.

PE:"If that is international law, then international law should be changed."

"Except that you don't believe in international law e.g. OIF."

I believe it should be changed. And when it has been changed to make dictatorship illegal, then I will believe in it. I am not going to support unjust laws.

PE:"People should not be massacred just because they are capitalist. It is perfectly natural to be capitalist."

"Nonsense, what Viet Namese capitalists are you talking about, it was a third world country! They were anti-communist Catholics mainly."

Capitalism is a NATURAL economic system. Simply trading with people at whatever price you can get, is perfectly natural. Even in the third world.

PE:"Kerry's testimony had nothing to do with Cambodia. It had all to do with war crimes against the Vietnamese people. Rape, chopping off ears, etc etc. War crimes that he had never seen, nor done himself."

"At that time 1971, Nixon had his not-so-secret war in Cambodia. That had something to do with anti-war feelings at the time. It was that incursion that really got the anti-war movement going, even more than Tet."

I do not mind if people are upset about Cambodia and complain about that. I don't mind if people are upset about Tet and complain about that. What I mind is people lying about systematic large-scale US war crimes. It was a filthy lie.

PE:"It was secure from internal rebellion."

"So your internal security required large scale death squads a la Saddam Hussein. You justify mass murder in the name of democracy as usual."

In order to win a war, you need to be willing to grit your teeth and do anything the enemy is prepared to do. So long as your cause is just (ie capitalism over communism), this is the LEAST WORST OPTION. You instead chose the WORST OPTION. You allowed mass murder in the name of communism. That was unconscionable.

"Who won the latest battle of Najaf? There is more to war than your hi-tech weaponry."

The IP/ING/MNF won. You really do not understand war. The territory (Imam Ali mosque) is now under government control, and Al Sadr has no military under his command anymore. No wonder Vietnam was lost with people like you in charge. You can't even see a complete and utter victory when it is staring you in the face, as Najaf.

"To win in South Viet Nam after 1975 we needed to invade North Viet Nam? Logical."

Not strictly necessary, but it was the proper way to fight.

"To win in South Korea we needed to invade North Korea?"

See above.

"But that's not what happened in either case. Two highly improbable claims."

Collapse the logistical support is the best way to do it if you can.

"Looks like SVN had about half the political prisoners of NVN, about the same number of 'executions in the South. No boat people though. Looks like both sides are comparable in criminality don't it?"

If both sides are equal in criminality in their methods of carrying out warfare, then back the one with the best ideology, so that when victory is obtained, you have the civilians live under the best ideology available. How can you not understand this?

"So when will the Iraqi government crush the Al-Medhi?"

It is crushed now.

"Wake me up when they start the firing squads."

Firing squads are not required. The ex-members will either get normal jobs, or they will commit crimes and be caught for that. That's life. Same as criminals in our own societies.

PE:"Iraq's war against Kuwait was not justified legally."

"But Bush's attack on a sovereign nation is?"

Technically, it was a continuation of the 1991 war which never ended.

PE:"And nor should Saddam's holocaust against his own people be justifiable legally. It was time for Saddam to pay the price for his own illegality."

"Du-uh.Saddam is under control(of course). So when are you arranging Bush's trial?"

Bringing someone to trial does not mean that you need to go on trial yourself.

"You know nothing about war."

Your post today was particularly shocking. You seriously think that Najaf was a loss. It is difficult to know how to respond to that. War is designed to get control of institutions, which in turn control policy on territory, or over people, or access to resources. After Najaf, the government's rule has been extended to Najaf. Soon it will extend to Fallujah and Sadr City. I'm not sure what more you could possibly want.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"It is not my obligation to prove that Kerry was lying about being a war criminal."
The whole thing amounts to slander by you. The libel laws in the US make public figures are from their protection. So it is up to you to end your juvenile smear tactics.

"He was correct. And sure enough, the tanks came rumbling over in 1975. However, South Vietnam was secure from internal rebellion."
Weird, eh? I took Thieu, SV puppet president to mean he opposed the Paris Peace Accord because Nixon's phoney ceasefire( cheap US election trick)doomed SVN from the beginning. No, he agrees with me, not you. The puppet's negative input not withstanding, Nixon's plan went ahead.

"Well, it's not a rat hole when you are having an economic war with the Soviet Union. That is exactly how to win an economic war."
Economic warfare? What about US grain sales to the USSR, what about detent? No blockade at all. Check your facts.

"This is not puppets."
He wasn't a literal handpuppet, he was alive human. But he did everything America wanted. Diem didn't and he was killed with CIA help.

"So you have to make a choice about whether a capitalist dictator is better than a communist dictator."
Like I said, you justify dictatorship in the name of democracy. You probably justify Saddam Hussein against Islamofascist Khomenni.
"So? A number so small that the South Vietnamese were able to control them by themselves, so long as they didn't have to deal with large-scale external threats." So they didn't need to launched the Phoenix program death squads. Yeah right, but that didn't work either.

"I believe it should be changed. And when it has been changed to make dictatorship illegal, then I will believe in it. I am not going to support unjust laws."
Bush acts like a dictator at home and abroad, does you international law change effect the current US regime?

"Capitalism is a NATURAL economic system. Simply trading with people at whatever price you can get, is perfectly natural. Even in the third world."
Barter is the natural economic system used by peasants. Modern capitalism is a lot more sophisticated than anything going on in Viet Nam at the time.
" What I mind is people lying about systematic large-scale US war crimes. It was a filthy lie."
Please explain these US war crimes in more detail.
Since you say that all crimes committed in the name of democracy are exempt, this should be interesting.

" You allowed mass murder in the name of communism. That was unconscionable."
You allow US mass murder. That is unconscionable.

"The IP/ING/MNF won. You really do not understand war. The territory (Imam Ali mosque) is now under government control, and Al Sadr has no military under his command anymore." He has millions of followers in South Iraq with plenty of guns and he is free. The object of war is to destroy the enemy's forces according to Clauswitz.

"No wonder Vietnam was lost with people like you in charge." Sorry, I have no politcal or military influence of any kind. That is twice as much as you have, mate!

"Not strictly necessary, but it was the proper way to fight." Your war expertise is baffling. Try reading Clauswitz "On War". Interesting, Clauswitz says "war is politics by other means", Sadr is seeking 'politics as war by other means'.

"Collapse the logistical support is the best way to do it if you can." You really are dumb. The best way? Did the leveling of Europe bring down Hitler? Did sanctions bring down Saddam?

"If both sides are equal in criminality in their methods of carrying out warfare, then back the one with the best ideology, so that when victory is obtained, you have the civilians live under the best ideology available. How can you not understand this?"
Does morality figure at all in your calculations?
"Firing squads are not required. The ex-members will either get normal jobs, or they will commit crimes and be caught for that. That's life. Same as criminals in our own societies."
This is exactly your neo-con concept of de-baathification, which worked so well under Bremer.

"Technically, it was a continuation of the 1991 war which never ended."Wrong, the UN mandate of 1991 only applied to Kuwait."'..[Bush's] interpretation of Resolutions 678 and 687 is absolutely incorrect," said Jules Lobel, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who is a leading scholar of U.N. jurisprudence.' Bush's legal experts also circulated worthless opinions on the legality of torture.

"Bringing someone to trial does not mean that you need to go on trial yourself." What about the crime of starting a war and lying about the reasons for it. Now,I am talking about Bush , not Saddam.
"Your post today was particularly shocking. You seriously think that Najaf was a loss. It is difficult to know how to respond to that."
And I am shocked that you are shocked.
"War is designed to get control of institutions, which in turn control policy on territory, or over people, or access to resources. After Najaf, the government's rule has been extended to Najaf. Soon it will extend to Fallujah and Sadr City. I'm not sure what more you could possibly want." Najaf proved that Al Sistani and the Iraqi Union of Clerics are more powerful that Allawi and 160,000 US troops and lots and lots of US tanks. The 'institution' of the Al-Medhi is alive and kicking and their pardoned boss has flown the coop. Is this your idea of the victory of democratic Iraq?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

PE:"It is not my obligation to prove that Kerry was lying about being a war criminal."

"The whole thing amounts to slander by you."

It is not slander. I sent you the MP3 already. That's it. He is a self-confessed war criminal. Don't argue with me - argue with him.

PE:"Well, it's not a rat hole when you are having an economic war with the Soviet Union. That is exactly how to win an economic war."

"Economic warfare? What about US grain sales to the USSR, what about detent? No blockade at all. Check your facts."

The way to win an modern economic war is to outspend the opponent. This was being done. Vietnam probably went a long way to sending the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

"He wasn't a literal handpuppet, he was alive human. But he did everything America wanted."

Did he do everything that Vietnam needed? That's a more appropriate test.

PE:"So you have to make a choice about whether a capitalist dictator is better than a communist dictator."

"Like I said, you justify dictatorship in the name of democracy. You probably justify Saddam Hussein against Islamofascist Khomenni."

Absolutely. When fighting a war, you can't be fussy. War is a nasty business. You need to grit your teeth and concentrate on the end goal.

"So they didn't need to launched the Phoenix program death squads. Yeah right, but that didn't work either."

I really have no idea how you fail to grasp this simple concept. Communism was basically an unjust war on civilians. People needed to be protected from this nasty ideology. If you need to carry out death squads against militants in order to stop the communist oppression, then so be it. It is better than the alternative, which is to surrender to the communists, and have to live in communist slavery. It was the communists who were at war. Our side was happy to leave them in the North where they can run their "wonderful" commie state. But they wanted to subjugate the South too. The enemy needed to be defeated, before they created a holocaust in the South. You opted for holocaust. You seem to be more upset about death squads against the enemy than you do about protecting people from a communist holocaust. To me, that is extremely weird.

"Bush acts like a dictator at home and abroad, does you international law change effect the current US regime?"

No. My international law change is that everyone has the right to live in a secular capitalist liberal democracy. Bush is OK. Saddam isn't.

"Barter is the natural economic system used by peasants. Modern capitalism is a lot more sophisticated than anything going on in Viet Nam at the time."

Barter is capitalism. You trade goods for the best deal you can get. Not "according to their needs", with "greedy" people being killed for not being generous enough.

PE:"What I mind is people lying about systematic large-scale US war crimes. It was a filthy lie."

"Please explain these US war crimes in more detail.
Since you say that all crimes committed in the name of democracy are exempt, this should be interesting."

No. The Geneva Convention needs to be obeyed. That means no raping women etc. Anyone who does that, needs to be charged. If Kerry did that, he needs to be charged. He claimed to have committed war crimes, but was vague about whether that entailed raping women or not. He didn't list specific violations of the Geneva Conventions, at least that he did. For all his mention of war crimes, I'm not sure that he managed to get a single verified violation of the Geneva Conventions.

"He has millions of followers in South Iraq with plenty of guns and he is free."

Not sure what you mean by "followers". There are plenty of followers of communism in the US, but they were never a threat to the government, no matter how many arms they had.

"The object of war is to destroy the enemy's forces according to Clauswitz."

This was done. Each time Sadr has engaged with the MNF, he has had the size of his "army" decimated. Last time he only managed to call on 1000. A large chunk of these was then destroyed. It is a paltry force.

PE:"Collapse the logistical support is the best way to do it if you can."

"You really are dumb. The best way? Did the leveling of Europe bring down Hitler? Did sanctions bring down Saddam?"

No, but it worked to great effect in Afghanistan.

"Does morality figure at all in your calculations?"

Yes. You decide which ideology is moral - communism slavery or capitalism freedom. After you've made sure you're on the right side, you then grit your teeth and do whatever the enemy is willing to do in order to win. You do not surrender.

"The 'institution' of the Al-Medhi is alive and kicking"

No it isn't. It can no longer organize. All the leaders can be monitored by the police now to ensure that they're not up to anything.

"and their pardoned boss has flown the coop. Is this your idea of the victory of democratic Iraq?"

He was out of the coop before the latest battle. Now that situation has improved. Although he is still out of the coop, he is quietly studying Islam instead of organizing an armed militia. And the police are able to monitor this as much as they want. If he steps out of line, he is toast. He controls no territory, no finance, no militia, no institution. This is indeed a victory for democratic Iraq.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
You're a hopeless dimwit Neanderthal.
"It is not slander. I sent you the MP3 already. That's it. He is a self-confessed war criminal. Don't argue with me - argue with him."
Argue with Bush who praises Kerry's heroism, so isn't Bush lying? Isn't Bush the chief law enforcement officer of the USA?

"The way to win an modern economic war is to outspend the opponent. This was being done. Vietnam probably went a long way to sending the Soviet Union into bankruptcy."
Probably? After VietNam the USSR felt strong enough to export revolution to Angola, Ethiopia, and finally to invade Afghanistan.
"Did he do everything that Vietnam needed? That's a more appropriate test." For you there is only one value, the ideal of liberal democracy( whatever the hell that is, your 'boring' Australia maybe). That makes you an absurd, narrow-minded fanatic.
"Absolutely. When fighting a war, you can't be fussy. War is a nasty business. You need to grit your teeth and concentrate on the end goal." So Saddam is preferable to Khomeini.
"I really have no idea how you fail to grasp this simple concept. Communism was basically an unjust war on civilians."
What about the US war on civilians? Oh yeah..the least-best-choice crap you mumble about.
" If you need to carry out death squads against militants in order to stop the communist oppression, then so be it."
This is your evil theory, 'the end justifies the means'.
"It is better than the alternative, which is to surrender to the communists, and have to live in communist slavery." Except you don't give anyone the chance to surrender, you'd destroy a village to save it. The perfect fanatic.
"You opted for holocaust."
I opted for peace, so peace is a holocaust?
"You seem to be more upset about death squads against the enemy than you do about protecting people from a communist holocaust."
Yes, my hands must be clean. Yours are filty.
"My international law change is that everyone has the right to live in a secular capitalist liberal democracy. Bush is OK. Saddam isn't."
Bush and Saddam are not very different on the subject of invading countries without international sanction. A triffling matter to you.

"Barter is capitalism. You trade goods for the best deal you can get. Not "according to their needs", with "greedy" people being killed for not being generous enough." You don't understand communist philosophy, about stages of development, etc.Unless you do you can't understand what you're fighting against. Read a book.

"No. The Geneva Convention needs to be obeyed. That means no raping women etc."
Does that include activities taken in the defense of your theoretical liberal democracy-Abu Ghraib?

"Anyone who does that, needs to be charged. If Kerry did that, he needs to be charged."
Then CHARGE HIM asshole. You have no specifics of any kind. The only charge I have heard in the USis that he didn't deserve his medals. Stop repeating lies, Goebbels[your repetition of a big lie is breathtaking].
"Not sure what you mean by "followers"." Thousands of Al-Mehdi militamen showed TV journalists the weapons they took out of the Imam Ali Mosque on the same day.

"There are plenty of followers of communism in the US, but they were never a threat to the government, no matter how many arms they had."
A lie, you never heard of the FBI I guess.
Why can't you stay on topic?
"This was done. Each time Sadr has engaged with the MNF, he has had the size of his "army" decimated. Last time he only managed to call on 1000. A large chunk of these was then destroyed. It is a paltry force."
Strange how these guerilla armies reconstitute themselves so easily.

"No, but it worked to great effect in Afghanistan."
Ah.. so the Mujahadeen had nothing to do with the defeat of the Red Army..it was all Jimmy Carter!
"No it isn't. It can no longer organize. All the leaders can be monitored by the police now to ensure that they're not up to anything."
Yes, it is alive and so is Fallujah.
"He was out of the coop before the latest battle. Now that situation has improved." He is as popular as ever.
"Although he is still out of the coop, he is quietly studying Islam instead of organizing an armed militia." Really, you believe that?
"And the police are able to monitor this as much as they want. If he steps out of line, he is toast. He controls no territory, no finance, no militia, no institution." So Brother Muqtada is under house arrest? Well then he should never trouble anyone again, correct? EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL!!!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Argue with Bush who praises Kerry's heroism, so isn't Bush lying?"

Probably not. It is Kerry who was lying about being a war criminal, instead of the truth, which is that his 4 months and 11 days was served honorably, he neither committed nor saw any war crimes.

"Probably? After VietNam the USSR felt strong enough to export revolution to Angola, Ethiopia, and finally to invade Afghanistan."

Yep, and then collapse. Without Vietnam, the collapse may have taken longer.

"So Saddam is preferable to Khomeini."

That is a tough question. It depends what weapons they have, not just the respective ideologies.

PE:"I really have no idea how you fail to grasp this simple concept. Communism was basically an unjust war on civilians."

"What about the US war on civilians?"

There wasn't one.

"Oh yeah..the least-best-choice crap you mumble about."

Which bit of "always choose the least-worst option" do you not understand?

PE:"If you need to carry out death squads against militants in order to stop the communist oppression, then so be it."

"This is your evil theory, 'the end justifies the means'."

Again, least worst option. Why do you choose the worst option, when something better is available?

PE:"It is better than the alternative, which is to surrender to the communists, and have to live in communist slavery."

"Except you don't give anyone the chance to surrender, you'd destroy a village to save it. The perfect fanatic."

Not true. Most of the people were saved, up until the time that the whole country was handed over to communist slavery.

PE:"You opted for holocaust."

"I opted for peace, so peace is a holocaust?"

Yes, peace under communism is a holocaust.

PE:"You seem to be more upset about death squads against the enemy than you do about protecting people from a communist holocaust."

"Yes, my hands must be clean."

Your hands are not clean. You told perfectly innocent people that they must go to communist gulags.

PE:"My international law change is that everyone has the right to live in a secular capitalist liberal democracy. Bush is OK. Saddam isn't."

"Bush and Saddam are not very different on the subject of invading countries without international sanction. A triffling matter to you."

In pursuit of the amended international law, it is acceptable. In pursuit of subjugating others, it is not acceptable.

"You don't understand communist philosophy, about stages of development, etc."

You don't understand that communism is a dogma and that the fanatical followers have caused ENORMOUS misery and that people have the right to be protected from this dogma.

PE:"No. The Geneva Convention needs to be obeyed. That means no raping women etc."

"Does that include activities taken in the defense of your theoretical liberal democracy-Abu Ghraib?"

Yes, any US soldiers raping etc there need to be charged. The US is already doing this. Not sure what your complaint is.

PE:"Anyone who does that, needs to be charged. If Kerry did that, he needs to be charged."

"Then CHARGE HIM asshole. You have no specifics of any kind."

Correct. This is Kerry at his best. He alleges that he was committing war crimes as part of US standard policy, but didn't actually specify anything such as raping women which we could pin him down on and charge him. So all he did was put a US face on Soviet propaganda, and was able to get away with it.

"Strange how these guerilla armies reconstitute themselves so easily."

I told you. The number dwindles every time.

PE:"No, but it (cutting logistics) worked to great effect in Afghanistan."

I was talking about the last war, against the Taliban.

PE:"Although he is still out of the coop, he is quietly studying Islam instead of organizing an armed militia."

"Really, you believe that?"

I think so. That's the IP's job to monitor though. If I'm wrong, he can be arrested. There's no longer anything standing between the IP and Al Sadr.

PE:"And the police are able to monitor this as much as they want. If he steps out of line, he is toast. He controls no territory, no finance, no militia, no institution."

"So Brother Muqtada is under house arrest?"

Probably not under house arrest. Probably he has been restricted to Najaf for now though.

"Well then he should never trouble anyone again, correct?"

This is the most likely scenario. The unlikely scenario is that he will try to cause trouble again, and this time he will be shot for sure.

"EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL!!!"

Yes, it's all going to be wrapped up in weeks now. There's no longer any significant organized opposition, so the IP/ING/MNF will be locking down Najaf, Fallujah and Sadr City very fast. Watch. With a bit of luck, US forces will be starting to withdraw before the US elections.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"Probably not. It is Kerry who was lying about being a war criminal, instead of the truth, which is that his 4 months and 11 days was served honorably, he neither committed nor saw any war crimes."
This kind of empty speculation reminds me of high school."If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, would it make a sound?"

"Yep, and then collapse. Without Vietnam, the collapse may have taken longer."
So you seriously believe that US military spending during the VietNam war bankrupted the USSR? Please tell other people about this incredible revelation.


"That is a tough question. It depends what weapons they have, not just the respective ideologies."
So totalitarian North Korea is more acceptable than Iraq because they have nuclear weapons? Or because they have no oil?
"There wasn't one."
You forgot the Phoenix death squads

"Which bit of "always choose the least-worst option" do you not understand?" The part about 'do-the-right-thing, you know the 'morality' shtick.
Again, least worst option. Why do you choose the worst option, when something better is available?
There is always a third option.
"Not true. Most of the people were saved, up until the time that the whole country was handed over to communist slavery."
Wrong, half the country was occupied by the NLF/NVA under the Paris Peace Accord. By 1975 there was just Saigon left.

"Yes, peace under communism is a holocaust."Was it a holocaust under Khrushev? You are prone to exaggerate.

"Your hands are not clean. You told perfectly innocent people that they must go to communist gulags." As I indicated earlier, I have no political or military power in fact (though more than you have,it is true), so when did I tell them this? Or are you exaggerating just a bit?

"In pursuit of the amended international law, it is acceptable. In pursuit of subjugating others, it is not acceptable." No such law exists, so you make it up? Such a one sided view will never be the basis of international law.

"You don't understand that communism is a dogma and that the fanatical followers have caused ENORMOUS misery and that people have the right to be protected from this dogma."
That fixed idea is your only notion of communism, to you it is just a word like 'evil' or 'devil'.

"Yes, any US soldiers raping etc there need to be charged. The US is already doing this. Not sure what your complaint is."
Good, so crimes committed in the name of democracy are crimes, correct? Let me ask if you have a war between Khomeini and Saddam, is not Saddam more guilty for starting the war?

"Correct. This is Kerry at his best. He alleges that he was committing war crimes as part of US standard policy, but didn't actually specify anything such as raping women which we could pin him down on and charge him. So all he did was put a US face on Soviet propaganda, and was able to get away with it." How do you know it was reported in the Soviet Press?

"I told you. The number dwindles every time."
Wrong," the seed of the church is built on the blood of the martyrs." It is basic psychology, not dependent on tanks.

"I think so. That's the IP's job to monitor though. If I'm wrong, he can be arrested. There's no longer anything standing between the IP and Al Sadr."
Like he was arrested in April..hold it, he's NEVER BEEN ARRESTED!
"Probably not under house arrest. Probably he has been restricted to Najaf for now though."
I've been asking in a number of places about him..where in the world is Muqtada?

"This is the most likely scenario. The unlikely scenario is that he will try to cause trouble again, and this time he will be shot for sure."
The IP will shoot him,sure!

"Yes, it's all going to be wrapped up in weeks now. There's no longer any significant organized opposition, so the IP/ING/MNF will be locking down Najaf, Fallujah and Sadr City very fast. Watch. With a bit of luck, US forces will be starting to withdraw before the US elections."
Well, Allawi better start moving fast or he may get to share a cell with Saddam again.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

PE:"Probably not. It is Kerry who was lying about being a war criminal, instead of the truth, which is that his 4 months and 11 days was served honorably, he neither committed nor saw any war crimes."

"This kind of empty speculation"

It would help if Kerry could clarify one way or the other what specific war crimes he personally committed. Did he rape women or not? He says he violated the Geneva Convention (raping women is indeed a violation), but he didn't give any specifics. Please clarify.

"So you seriously believe that US military spending during the VietNam war bankrupted the USSR? Please tell other people about this incredible revelation."

Yes. It's way too much money to spend on a war. If the US was feeling the pain, the USSR must have had the guts ripped out of it. Completely disillusioned the people. Certainly by the time that Gorbachev came to power, the Russians had lost all desire to pay for continued opposition to the US. Vietnam may or may not have been necessary to achieve that effect. There's no way to do a controlled experiment to find out. All we know for sure is that enough was done.

PE:"That is a tough question. It depends what weapons they have, not just the respective ideologies."

"So totalitarian North Korea is more acceptable than Iraq because they have nuclear weapons? Or because they have no oil?"

If I knew for sure that North Korea had nuclear weapons, I would be willing to wipe them out completely in a preemptive nuclear strike. Without nukes, I'm willing to simply cut the oil supplies and force an economic collapse. North Korea is not acceptable. However, it is isolated. Iraq is particularly lucrative because of all the Arabs there, so we can see what an Arab democracy looks like.

PE:"There wasn't one."

"You forgot the Phoenix death squads"

In what way is this a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

PE:"Which bit of "always choose the least-worst option" do you not understand?"

"The part about 'do-the-right-thing, you know the 'morality' shtick."

The right thing is to protect people from communist subjugation. This was not done.

"Again, least worst option. Why do you choose the worst option, when something better is available?
There is always a third option."

Please specify how the South Vietnamese should have been protected from communist subjugation. If you wouldn't submit to communist subjugation yourself, you shouldn't expect others to either.

PE:"Not true. Most of the people were saved, up until the time that the whole country was handed over to communist slavery."

"Wrong, half the country was occupied by the NLF/NVA under the Paris Peace Accord. By 1975 there was just Saigon left."

Half of South Vietnam (ie the safe place for capitalists) was NOT occupied by the NVA. The territory was controlled by the SVA.

PE:"Yes, peace under communism is a holocaust."

"Was it a holocaust under Khrushev? You are prone to exaggerate."

100 million people died under communism. Besides the deaths, there's the living who had no freedom of speech, and no ability to work hard to make a better life for their family. Yeah, communism as an ideology is a holocaust. Exactly how far the commies decide to go is anyone's guess. Once you hand over power to them, your life is in their hands.

PE:"Your hands are not clean. You told perfectly innocent people that they must go to communist gulags."

"As I indicated earlier, I have no political or military power in fact (though more than you have,it is true), so when did I tell them this? Or are you exaggerating just a bit?"

People who share your ideology carried out the crime. I am transferring responsibility for the crime to you, because you support their actions, and you are here to debate.

PE:"In pursuit of the amended international law, it is acceptable. In pursuit of subjugating others, it is not acceptable."

"No such law exists, so you make it up? Such a one sided view will never be the basis of international law."

Until such law exists, I will not be held hostage to a morally bankrupt international law.

PE:"You don't understand that communism is a dogma and that the fanatical followers have caused ENORMOUS misery and that people have the right to be protected from this dogma."

"That fixed idea is your only notion of communism, to you it is just a word like 'evil' or 'devil'."

100 million dead doesn't read any other way. Subjugation of Eastern Europe doesn't read any other way. Vietnamese boat people doesn't read any other way.

PE:"Yes, any US soldiers raping etc there need to be charged. The US is already doing this. Not sure what your complaint is."

"Good, so crimes committed in the name of democracy are crimes, correct?"

Yes. If there was no military necessity, e.g. raping a woman is not militarily necessary, then it is indeed a war crime and there is no excuse, the person should be charged with the crime.

"Let me ask if you have a war between Khomeini and Saddam, is not Saddam more guilty for starting the war?"

Yes, Saddam's war was for nefarious purposes. Although if he was doing it just to bankrupt Iran so that they couldn't spread their ideology, then it would be OK.

PE:"Correct. This is Kerry at his best. He alleges that he was committing war crimes as part of US standard policy, but didn't actually specify anything such as raping women which we could pin him down on and charge him. So all he did was put a US face on Soviet propaganda, and was able to get away with it."

"How do you know it was reported in the Soviet Press?"

We've got defectors:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

PE:"I told you. The number dwindles every time."

"Wrong," the seed of the church is built on the blood of the martyrs." It is basic psychology, not dependent on tanks."

Your theory doesn't match the data. You need to reevaluate your theory. The number of people that Al Sadr managed to call up decreased every time.

PE:"I think so. That's the IP's job to monitor though. If I'm wrong, he can be arrested. There's no longer anything standing between the IP and Al Sadr."

"Like he was arrested in April..hold it, he's NEVER BEEN ARRESTED!"

Correct. With each "uprising" they have been getting closer and closer to arresting him, without actually doing so. This is a tactical move. The US didn't lose any ground or anything because of this tactic. It was strategic to have what amounts to an operational pause.

PE:"Probably not under house arrest. Probably he has been restricted to Najaf for now though."

"I've been asking in a number of places about him..where in the world is Muqtada?"

If you can't find him, you can't sign up to the Mehdi Army, or receive instructions from him. Without a head on the snake, you just have disorganized criminals. They will be wrapped up very soon. Watch.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,

"It would help if Kerry could clarify one way or the other what specific war crimes he personally committed. Did he rape women or not? He says he violated the Geneva Convention (raping women is indeed a violation), but he didn't give any specifics. Please clarify."
(Yawn) How, exactly would that help?
"It's way too much money to spend on a war.. All we know for sure is that enough was done."

Sure, the way that Hitler was defeated was that we outspent him too..Of course! it's just a matter of spending!


"If I knew for sure that North Korea had nuclear weapons, I would be willing to wipe them out completely in a preemptive nuclear strike. Without nukes, I'm willing to simply cut the oil supplies and force an economic collapse. North Korea is not acceptable. However, it is isolated. Iraq is particularly lucrative because of all the Arabs there, so we can see what an Arab democracy looks like.
BBC-How many weapons does North Korea already possess?
Experts believe that North Korea may have extracted sufficient plutonium for a small number of bombs.
US officials have put the number at "one or two".
"You forgot the Phoenix death squads"
In what way is this a violation of the Geneva Conventions?"
Death squad executions violate the laws of armed conflict as well as many human rights covenants. A related crime, forced disappearances, is now considered a crime against humanity under specific circumstances.
The laws of armed conflict as codified in the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 explicitly prohibit executions without a fair trial.

The right thing is to protect people from communist subjugation. This was not done.
You have the same idea of 'protection' as the Mafia does. Get some morals.

"If you wouldn't submit to communist subjugation yourself, you shouldn't expect others to either."
I can honestly say that faced with the barrel of a gun I would surrender and survive. You could always throw yourself off a cliff into the sea like the Japanese did at Saipan.

"Half of South Vietnam (ie the safe place for capitalists) was NOT occupied by the NVA. The territory was controlled by the SVA." So puppet Gen.Thieu was a hysterical liar?

"100 million people died under communism. Besides the deaths, there's the living who had no freedom of speech, and no ability to work hard to make a better life for their family. Yeah, communism as an ideology is a holocaust. Exactly how far the commies decide to go is anyone's guess. Once you hand over power to them, your life is in their hands."
How many died under European colonialism, your philosophy at least 100,000,000. Slavery, genocide of Indians, Opium wars, etc. The difference between us is that I take my last statement as hyberbole, you take your last one as fact. You're a fanatical fool.
"People who share your ideology carried out the crime. I am transferring responsibility for the crime to you, because you support their actions, and you are here to debate."
Under what authority can you transfer responsibility. So I am a stand-in for your bogie-men,the communists? You're quite mad.

"Until such law exists, I will not be held hostage to a morally bankrupt international law."
You are Nietzsche's superman, hold up in the slums of Melbourne.
"100 million dead doesn't read any other way. Subjugation of Eastern Europe doesn't read any other way. Vietnamese boat people doesn't read any other way." Should'nt you be on a ledge somewhere?
"Good, so crimes committed in the name of democracy are crimes, correct?"
"Yes. If there was no military necessity, e.g. raping a woman is not militarily necessary, then it is indeed a war crime and there is no excuse, the person should be charged with the crime."
What about raping a man as was done in Abu Ghraib to obtain intelligence on guerrillas?

"Yes, Saddam's war was for nefarious purposes."
Nefarious..interesting. If OIF was actually initiated to obtain access to Iraqi oil would that be a crime?

"Although if he was doing it just to bankrupt Iran so that they couldn't spread their ideology, then it would be OK."
With or without actually fighting you mean???

"So all he did was put a US face on Soviet propaganda, and was able to get away with it."
We're talking about a man who Bush has characterized as a hero, right?
"http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp"
National Review, of course. Do you find all your news on rightwing sites?

"Your theory doesn't match the data. You need to reevaluate your theory. The number of people that Al Sadr managed to call up decreased every time."
We disagree as you produce no data to support your contention. Sadr is as popular as ever with his base.
"Correct. With each "uprising" they have been getting closer and closer to arresting him, without actually doing so. This is a tactical move. The US didn't lose any ground or anything because of this tactic. It was strategic to have what amounts to an operational pause."
So eventually he will be arrested?


"If you can't find him, you can't sign up to the Mehdi Army, or receive instructions from him. Without a head on the snake, you just have disorganized criminals. They will be wrapped up very soon. Watch"
I did find him. He was sleeping over at Al-Sistani's house. Some surprised journalists camped out their saw him suddenly walk right out the door! Looks like Sadr found himself a new friend-the most powerful Shia in Iraq, no less.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

PE:"It would help if Kerry could clarify one way or the other what specific war crimes he personally committed. Did he rape women or not? He says he violated the Geneva Convention (raping women is indeed a violation), but he didn't give any specifics. Please clarify."

"(Yawn) How, exactly would that help?"

Raping women is something to yawn about? It would help bring justice to all the women he raped, if he would lay out when he raped them so he can actually be charged and jailed.

"Sure, the way that Hitler was defeated was that we outspent him too..Of course! it's just a matter of spending!"

Yes, this is correct. It is actually economic capacity that determines the outcome of a full-scale modern war. It doesn't even matter if the weapons are used or not. Just so long as both sides are competing because they think they might need to use them.

"Death squad executions violate the laws of armed conflict as well as many human rights covenants."

Fighting without wearing a uniform, as guerillas do, means that you do not get protection of the Geneva Conventions. The GC is there to reward people for putting on a uniform, to avoid civilian casualties. Anyone who hides amongst civilians, loses all protection.

"You have the same idea of 'protection' as the Mafia does. Get some morals."

It is totally moral to protect millions of South Vietnamese from communist subjugation. How on earth do you rationalize that that is immoral?

PE:"If you wouldn't submit to communist subjugation yourself, you shouldn't expect others to either."

"I can honestly say that faced with the barrel of a gun I would surrender and survive."

So would I. Now what would you do if you had a gun of your own?

"How many died under European colonialism"

Two wrongs don't make a right. Are you going to refuse to do the right thing ever, based on the fact that someone somewhere once did something wrong?

"So I am a stand-in for your bogie-men,the communists?"

You're a stand-in for those who supported sending South Vietnamese allies to communist gulags, that is correct. It is my only chance to understand sociopaths.

"What about raping a man as was done in Abu Ghraib to obtain intelligence on guerrillas?"

Yes, he should be charged.

"Nefarious..interesting. If OIF was actually initiated to obtain access to Iraqi oil would that be a crime?"

Not sure what you mean by "access". If you mean to steal the oil and subjugate the people, yes, that would be a crime. In fact, I would be in favour of Australia joining NATO and the US to no longer be a member of NATO. If you're going to steal from the Iraqis, I may be next. I'm not interested in living under a US dictatorship.

PE:"Although if he was doing it just to bankrupt Iran so that they couldn't spread their ideology, then it would be OK."

"With or without actually fighting you mean???"

Whatever is required to bring their sick ideology to a halt.

PE:"So all he did was put a US face on Soviet propaganda, and was able to get away with it."

"We're talking about a man who Bush has characterized as a hero, right?"

Yes. He was a hero, not a war criminal, when he was in Vietnam. At least according to any evidence that has been provided.

"National Review, of course. Do you find all your news on rightwing sites?"

No, I get most of my news from the BBC, both on the web and on TV. The format is better than Fox News. But I go to Fox News when I want endless analysis of Iraq (except for the forays into Laci Peterson).

PE:"Your theory doesn't match the data. You need to reevaluate your theory. The number of people that Al Sadr managed to call up decreased every time."

"We disagree as you produce no data to support your contention. Sadr is as popular as ever with his base."

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

August 25, 2004
This was a repeat of that happened in April and May, when several thousand of Sadr's followers died. Why was Sadr able to gather over a thousand gunmen this month, after what happened in April and May?

"So eventually he will be arrested?"

That depends on whether he breaks the law in the future. This is unpredictable.

"I did find him. He was sleeping over at Al-Sistani's house. Some surprised journalists camped out their saw him suddenly walk right out the door! Looks like Sadr found himself a new friend-the most powerful Shia in Iraq, no less."

This powerful Shia issued a fatwah saying that the IP/ING/MNF should not be attacked. Al Sadr echoed this. You need to do more than find him. You need to now see if he will give you directions on how to attack the IP/ING/MNF. If he does, then your sting operation will finally get an opportunity to arrest him for treason.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"Raping women is something to yawn about? It would help bring justice to all the women he raped, if he would lay out when he raped them so he can actually be charged and jailed."
Calm down Pauline, you're hysterical. I may have to slap some sense into you.

"Yes, this is correct. It is actually economic capacity that determines the outcome of a full-scale modern war. It doesn't even matter if the weapons are used or not. Just so long as both sides are competing because they think they might need to use them."
So to win the war on Terror , we only need to outspend OBL and Zarqawi?
"Fighting without wearing a uniform, as guerillas do, means that you do not get protection of the Geneva Conventions. The GC is there to reward people for putting on a uniform, to avoid civilian casualties. Anyone who hides amongst civilians, loses all protection." Not true, read the Geneva Convention-you can't just shoot them as spies anymore.

"It is totally moral to protect millions of South Vietnamese from communist subjugation. How on earth do you rationalize that that is immoral?"
Putting them into 'pacification camps' to save them from the VC is immoral. Your 'protection' is immoral.
" Now what would you do if you had a gun of your own?"
Here we differ, I might fight for a while but in the end I'd give up. You'd blow out your brains with your last round.

"Two wrongs don't make a right. Are you going to refuse to do the right thing ever, based on the fact that someone somewhere once did something wrong?"
To me you are a stand in for the colonialists like King Leopold and Churchill, who repressed and killed Third World people to make fortunes.
You resemble Cortez who you glorify in contrast to the Aztecs, justify your natural capitalism(greed) by condemning the 'barbarity' of the natives. You need to remove the mote from your own eye.
"You're a stand-in for those who supported sending South Vietnamese allies to communist gulags, that is correct. It is my only chance to understand sociopaths." Then you're on the wrong path. I'm the one who 'preaches'self-determination and morality. You preach predatory capitalism and armed intervention. Who's the sociopath?
"Yes, he should be charged."
What about the military intelligence officers who encouraged it. And what about (now quiescent)Donald Rumsfeld who set the policy? Taguba said it was systematic.
" If you mean to steal the oil and subjugate the people, yes, that would be a crime."
Would it be a crime to start a war in anticipation that it would flood the world market with oil? (Surely not, it's win-win!)
"If you're going to steal from the Iraqis, I may be next. I'm not interested in living under a US dictatorship." Now you're playing dumb. Would it be moral to start a war force a country to trade, such as the Opium war or Perry's opening of Japan?

Whatever is required to bring their sick ideology to a halt.
Again with the 'Means justifies the Ends'. You should read Kant "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals "
"Yes. He was a hero, not a war criminal, when he was in Vietnam." So you just like repeating slander, gotcha!

"No, I get most of my news from the BBC, both on the web and on TV. The format is better than Fox News. But I go to Fox News when I want endless analysis of Iraq (except for the forays into Laci Peterson)." That explains a lot. You need to lay off the (Fox) hard stuff.

"That depends on whether he breaks the law in the future. This is unpredictable."
No, you said it is predictable that he will eventually get arrested. Of course in the very long run we're all dead.
"This powerful Shia issued a fatwah saying that the IP/ING/MNF should not be attacked." Oh that...didn't do much good over the past few weeks.
"Al Sadr echoed this." He does that on every ceasefire, then his army confronts US troops again. You believe him?
"You need to do more than find him. You need to now see if he will give you directions on how to attack the IP/ING/MNF." These natives a bit more tricky than that old chap!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"So to win the war on Terror , we only need to outspend OBL and Zarqawi?"

I'm talking about a war between governments, or at least, people controlling territory. Yes. After you've outspent them, you end up with air supremacy, and the rest follows according to standard military doctine. You'll notice the training camps in Afghanistan have gone. OBL doesn't live in the brand new home he built for his family.

"you can't just shoot them as spies anymore."

Have you ever heard "refuse to accept a surrender"?

"Putting them into 'pacification camps' to save them from the VC is immoral. Your 'protection' is immoral."

Civilians being put into refugee camps is not immoral.

PE:"Now what would you do if you had a gun of your own?"

"Here we differ, I might fight for a while but in the end I'd give up. You'd blow out your brains with your last round."

Well, war isn't like that, it is large numbers of people. So the question is - what percentage of the population of your country are you willing to lose in order to avoid living under tyranny? At the Alamo they chose 100%. My estimate for Australia is 90%.

"I'm the one who 'preaches'self-determination and morality."

The South Vietnamese's right to self-determination was ended by NVA tanks. How is that moral?

PE:"Yes, he should be charged."

"What about the military intelligence officers who encouraged it."

Did he issue an illegal order? Did the guys get the order in writing? The are required to disobey illegal orders regardless. So, no.

"Would it be a crime to start a war in anticipation that it would flood the world market with oil? (Surely not, it's win-win!)"

Yes, you can't do this.

"Would it be moral to start a war force a country to trade, such as the Opium war or Perry's opening of Japan?"

No.

PE:"Yes. He was a hero, not a war criminal, when he was in Vietnam."

"So you just like repeating slander, gotcha!"

I like to point out that Kerry called himself a war criminal, when I think he was actually a war hero. However, I may be wrong. I need more details about the war crimes he says he committed.

PE:"That depends on whether he breaks the law in the future. This is unpredictable."

"No, you said it is predictable that he will eventually get arrested."

If he breaks the law, it is predictable that he will be arrested next time. All his protection has been ripped off him. Each confrontation, more was ripped off. He's now naked.

PE:"This powerful Shia issued a fatwah saying that the IP/ING/MNF should not be attacked."

"Oh that...didn't do much good over the past few weeks."

He only issued it a couple of days ago. Another victory for the MNF!!!

PE:"Al Sadr echoed this."

"He does that on every ceasefire, then his army confronts US troops again. You believe him?"

I believe it is irrelevant. He no longer controls any territory. Ergo, he is naked and vulnerable. He's just a normal citizen, and he'd better watch out that he doesn't break the law.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"I'm talking about a war between governments, or at least, people controlling territory. Yes. After you've outspent them, you end up with air supremacy, and the rest follows according to standard military doctine. You'll notice the training camps in Afghanistan have gone. OBL doesn't live in the brand new home he built for his family."
Your theory fails in the case of North Korea or Cuba where economic isolation has not undermined those regimes. It is true that economic sanctions can impoverish people. So you try starve the leaders out? You'd probably shoot hostages, to reduce the kidnapper's bargaining chips. Big deal, your point being???
BTW,Bin Ladin doesn't live in a house because he doesn't want to, he lives in a tent,cave. He despises creature comforts and wants to do away with Air conditioning, electricity and fresh food.

"Have you ever heard "refuse to accept a surrender"?" Ever hear of take no prisoners?

"Civilians being put into refugee camps is not immoral. "Tell that to the Boers, Australian troops confined in 1900 obeying their British overlords.

"Well, war isn't like that, it is large numbers of people. So the question is - what percentage of the population of your country are you willing to lose in order to avoid living under tyranny? At the Alamo they chose 100%. My estimate for Australia is 90%."
Oh yeah, Remember the Alamo. But that's Texas, not really part of the USA at all. I KNOW that no foreign power will ever conquer the USA. We will/are going the way of the Roman Republic and your war is feeding that process. A revolution in the legal system is underway and your neo-cons are behind it. My birthright is being sold for a cup of porridge, to the fanatics, the corporations, the rich. If Bush is reelected I think a new law will be passed. The crime of 'violated majesty', of denigrating or even questioning the great 'war leader'. We are becoming a debased people.


"The South Vietnamese's right to self-determination was ended by NVA tanks. How is that moral?"
Because it was their choice, had there been a heroic defense US public opinion would have responded. The ARVN machine just crumpled up.


"Did he issue an illegal order? Did the guys get the order in writing? The are required to disobey illegal orders regardless. "
You're showing your charming naivete again. Get real.

"Would it be a crime to start a war in anticipation that it would flood the world market with oil? (Surely not, it's win-win!)"

Yes, you can't do this.
[BTW, who ended the Khmer Rouge genocide? America, Australia..no it was the communists. Who defeated genocidal Hitler..it was the communists. Your black and white thinking will not do here.]
"Would it be moral to start a war force a country to trade, such as the Opium war or Perry's opening of Japan?"

No.
So there must be some compelling reason for attacking another country. In the past the absolute measure was self-defense from foreign invasion, as this is reasonable for all sovereignties. You go further than others and there is no agreement with your plan-therefore there is no 'law' to support you. Bush 'invents' such legalities on-the-fly.

"I like to point out that Kerry called himself a war criminal, when I think he was actually a war hero. " If Reagan had said it you would have applaude. Your trying too hard to catch him on technicalities and just look silly. Are your part-lawyer?
"If he breaks the law, it is predictable that he will be arrested next time. All his protection has been ripped off him. Each confrontation, more was ripped off. He's now naked."
He is with Sistani, which is better than a bodyguard of 160000 US troops.

"He only issued it a couple of days ago. Another victory for the MNF!!!"
They've been talking to him for months! Did you read the statement text in paper or something? It's all unofficial of course.

"I believe it is irrelevant. He no longer controls any territory. Ergo, he is naked and vulnerable. He's just a normal citizen, and he'd better watch out that he doesn't break the law." You remind me Neville Chamberlain's cool agreement with Herr Hitler.."Peace in our time". Jolly good show. I think he needed to be arrested, you think it's no big deal he was let go.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Your theory fails in the case of North Korea or Cuba where economic isolation has not undermined those regimes."

Yes it has. In both cases, they have no chance at all against a battle with the US. They needed to spend as much money as the US did if they wanted to have a chance in 2004. They failed to do so. The US now has complete military superiority, and Kim is only alive for as long as the US allows him to live. Same as Castro.

"BTW,Bin Ladin doesn't live in a house because he doesn't want to"

Wrong. He built a house for his family in Kandahar.

PE:"Well, war isn't like that, it is large numbers of people. So the question is - what percentage of the population of your country are you willing to lose in order to avoid living under tyranny? At the Alamo they chose 100%. My estimate for Australia is 90%."

"Oh yeah, Remember the Alamo. But that's Texas, not really part of the USA at all. I KNOW that no foreign power will ever conquer the USA."

You didn't answer the question. If a foreign power was attacking the US, or indeed, if you were Australian and a foreign power was attacking Australia, what percentage of your own population would you be willing to lose to fight the enemy? In WWII the Japanese were on their way to Australia bringing with them the novel concept of "comfort women". It is my estimation that we would have sacrificed 90% of our population before handing over a single woman. What's yours?

"The crime of 'violated majesty', of denigrating or even questioning the great 'war leader'. We are becoming a debased people."

Actually, you are defacto the other way around. There is a defacto rule that no-one should question whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not. The press has swept that under the carpet. Compared to the salivating of "Bush AWOL". The press is not demanding the release of Kerry's records, unlike what they did with Bush.

"Because it was their choice, had there been a heroic defense US public opinion would have responded. The ARVN machine just crumpled up."

They did do a heroic defence, with what they had available. They were outmatched by the NVA tanks.

"[BTW, who ended the Khmer Rouge genocide? America, Australia..no it was the communists."

I don't have a problem with Vietnam invading Cambodia.

"Who defeated genocidal Hitler..it was the communists."

The communists started the war! And it was US weaponry which saved the communists from subsequently being wiped out by their erstwhile allies.

"So there must be some compelling reason for attacking another country. In the past the absolute measure was self-defense from foreign invasion, as this is reasonable for all sovereignties. You go further than others and there is no agreement with your plan-therefore there is no 'law' to support you. Bush 'invents' such legalities on-the-fly."

It is BOTH self-defense AND human rights. The latter has some legality. There is such a thing as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Saddam violated it. As far as I'm concerned, we had a right to topple him for that alone.

For the former question of self-defence, that is also covered. As far as I'm concerned, with modern nuclear weaponry available to be purchased for anyone who has the money, EVERY dictator is a threat. Unless there is an open government so I can track the money, anyone who is hostile in any way, needs to be defended against. If you aren't scared of Syria, you should be.

"Your trying too hard to catch him on technicalities and just look silly."

Sorry, the only thing that is silly is Kerry flip-flopping so much that he has simultaneously claimed to be both a war criminal and a war hero.

"He is with Sistani, which is better than a bodyguard of 160000 US troops."

No it isn't.

"They've been talking to him for months!"

And this latest battle made the breakthrough. What's the problem?

"Did you read the statement text in paper or something? It's all unofficial of course."

I read it from my usual news source...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608398.stm

"I think he needed to be arrested, you think it's no big deal he was let go."

He only needs to be arrestable, not arrested. Monitorable, not arrested. The point of jailing someone is to protect the public. Police monitoring is the equivalent of house arrest. It's not a big deal from an institutional point of view.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"Yes it has. In both cases, they have no chance at all against a battle with the US. They needed to spend as much money as the US did if they wanted to have a chance in 2004. They failed to do so. The US now has complete military superiority, and Kim is only alive for as long as the US allows him to live. Same as Castro."
Because America is the sole superpower it is responsible for everything? You sound exactly like an old 60's style Marxist. Wrong of course, there are limits to US power.

"Wrong. He built a house for his family in Kandahar."
Yes, for entertaining visting fiends of Al Qaeda and for all those ridiculous wives. But personally he is ascetic, wants to live in the desert without Western comforts. This is why he will never succeed with his 'Caliphate'.
"Oh yeah, Remember the Alamo. But that's Texas, not really part of the USA at all. I KNOW that no foreign power will ever conquer the USA."
"You didn't answer the question. ...what percentage of your own population would you be willing to lose to fight the enemy? A foolish question deserves a foolish answer-but I'm too tired for pleasantries. Look at the US public reaction to 9/11. This is why Bush is dangerous.
"In WWII the Japanese were on their way to Australia bringing with them the novel concept of "comfort women". It is my estimation that we would have sacrificed 90% of our population before handing over a single woman. What's yours?"
Are you seriously suggesting that Japan started WW2 because they wanted Australian women?
"There is a defacto rule that no-one should question whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not. The press has swept that under the carpet."
This defacto rule didnt apply to the Republicans, the media or you. Are you making up rules[no surprise here]?
"Compared to the salivating of "Bush AWOL". The press is not demanding the release of Kerry's records, unlike what they did with Bush." I guess you don't understand, Kerry's records are all public[thus the lack of media interest]. Bush's records have been DESTROYED IN A FIRE. He still can't produce a single witness to his air guard service, except his commander when asked said he never saw him.

"They did do a heroic defence, with what they had available. They were outmatched by the NVA tanks."
Wrong, next question.
"Who defeated genocidal Hitler..it was the communists."
"The communists started the war! And it was US weaponry which saved the communists from subsequently being wiped out by their erstwhile allies."Come again? Hitler attacked Russia! Russia lost 20,000,000. Now you're back to lying.

"It is BOTH self-defense AND human rights.... As far as I'm concerned, we had a right to topple him for that alone." You can't write laws for just to suit yourself. You need to get agreement to create international laws, you take shortcuts.

" Unless there is an open government so I can track the money, anyone who is hostile in any way, needs to be defended against."
The USA is no longer an open government, look at the web of national securiy secrecy surrounding Bush-Cheney. They lie and cover-up and are unworthy of trust.
"If you aren't scared of Syria, you should be." You've been reading the National review again. You swallow up all their trash. Not a fussy eater, a glutton for misinformation.

"Sorry, the only thing that is silly is Kerry flip-flopping so much that he has simultaneously claimed to be both a war criminal and a war hero."
You're a broken-record.

"No it isn't." Yes, it is. If Sistani made a fatwa that all Americans must leave Iraq-that would happen,dude.
" What's the problem?"
The problem is that the clerics are running the show not Allawi and the politicans.

"He only needs to be arrestable, not arrested. Monitorable, not arrested. The point of jailing someone is to protect the public. Police monitoring is the equivalent of house arrest. It's not a big deal from an institutional point of view." You really need to in an institution. Your scheme for institutional change is not working--the old institutions are. In this case Allawi couldn't handle Sadr in 3 months, it took Sistani 4 minutes. If Sistani were a friend of the New Iraq he would visit Allawi,which he hasn't. I regret to say that EVERYTHING IS NOT UNDER CONTROL.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Because America is the sole superpower it is responsible for everything? You sound exactly like an old 60's style Marxist. Wrong of course, there are limits to US power."

There is nothing stopping the US from flying a B2 bomber over North Korea and dropping a nuke on it. It will not even be detected. The North Koreans don't have a radar that can detect a B2 bomber. If the North Koreans wanted to defend against the US, they needed to spend a LOT more money so that they can prepare for such stealth attacks. They have failed to do so. So they have already lost. If they want to restrict the war to conventional, then that too is the same result. Kim is dead. It's that simple. The war has already been won, and it was won economically. Actually, both economically and diplomatically. Because the people who could have opposed the US and prevented the US from attacking North Korea, are the Europeans. The Europeans needed to match US military spending. The Europeans failed to do this, because US diplomacy got them to JOIN the US instead of OPPOSING the US. Thus America has completely slam-dunked the world.

PE:"You didn't answer the question. ...what percentage of your own population would you be willing to lose to fight the enemy?"

"A foolish question deserves a foolish answer-but I'm too tired for pleasantries."

Just give me a number. Imagine you were a small country like Australia.

"Look at the US public reaction to 9/11. This is why Bush is dangerous."

No, this is why the enemy is dangerous, and needs to be defeated before they attack again.

"Are you seriously suggesting that Japan started WW2 because they wanted Australian women?"

Of course not. But once a dictator (local or foreign) controls Australia, Australians lose all rights. It doesn't make any difference if it is a local like Saddam or foreigners like Japan. I do not want to live in an environment where the government can rape my daughter legally. I would rather take a 90% chance of death than be in that situation. What percentage chance are you willing to take?

PE:"There is a defacto rule that no-one should question whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not. The press has swept that under the carpet."

"This defacto rule didnt apply to the Republicans, the media or you."

It did apply to most of the media. When was the last time you saw a reporter on TV asking Kerry why he came up with the "Christmas in Cambodia" lie?

"I guess you don't understand, Kerry's records are all public[thus the lack of media interest]."

No they're not. He hasn't signed the form (108 or something) that allows them to be released.

"Bush's records have been DESTROYED IN A FIRE. He still can't produce a single witness to his air guard service, except his commander when asked said he never saw him."

And where are the witnesses to John Kerry-Rambo's Cambodia escapades?

PE:"They did do a heroic defence, with what they had available. They were outmatched by the NVA tanks."

"Wrong, next question."

It's not wrong. They made tactical mistakes for sure. But that is no reason to not even have the decency to provide air cover for them. They were a new government. It takes time to develop kick-arse militaries like South Korea now has. It is unreasonable to expect the South Vietnamese of 1975 to perform as well as a South Korea 2004.

"Come again? Hitler attacked Russia! Russia lost 20,000,000. Now you're back to lying."

Russia invaded Poland, which is what started WWII. Germany did as well. They were allies. And prior to WWII starting, the communists had trained up the Nazis. Just because the world's two biggest arseholes had a falling out, doesn't alter the fact that the commies are responsible for their own deaths.

PE:"It is BOTH self-defense AND human rights.... As far as I'm concerned, we had a right to topple him for that alone."

"You can't write laws for just to suit yourself. You need to get agreement to create international laws, you take shortcuts."

Agreement with who? You want me to get permission of human rights abusers before I can change the law so that human rights absuses are not allowed? That's Catch-22. As far as I'm concerned, they are illegitimate and I'm not interested in their opinion. I'm only interested in toppling them. If they can abuse the human rights of their own people, then they would have no problem doing it to me as well, if they ever find a way of conquering me. My intention is to conquer them in advance.

"The USA is no longer an open government, look at the web of national securiy secrecy surrounding Bush-Cheney. They lie and cover-up and are unworthy of trust."

This is not true. What is it you would like to know that no-one will tell you?

PE:"If you aren't scared of Syria, you should be."

"You've been reading the National review again. You swallow up all their trash. Not a fussy eater, a glutton for misinformation."

I don't swallow their stuff. I independently come to that conclusion. I do not like dictators. I do not trust dictators. Some dictators I can make a guess that they're not dangerous, e.g. Burma, but even those I want to topple. I can't see any reason why I should put up with any doubt, and nor do I see a reason to allow them to abuse their own citizens.

"If Sistani made a fatwa that all Americans must leave Iraq-that would happen,dude."

No it wouldn't. The real war would start instead. Slaughtering Muslims. To date, all this pussy-footing around has been in order to avoid the real war. It is my belief that the real war can be avoided with tact.

"The problem is that the clerics are running the show not Allawi and the politicans."

What is it that Sistani is doing that is against the interests of the Iraqi people? BTW, I thought Allawi was a US puppet. Now he's a Sistani puppet? Can you guys get a common position on this?

"In this case Allawi couldn't handle Sadr in 3 months,"

Sadr didn't need to be handled. What was required was the logistics to remain uninterrupted to allow the ING to be recruited and trained. This was done. That was 3 months breathing space. That was crucial. Every day is crucial in fact, because every day more ING come online. This is where the real war is. As soon as the ING numbers are sufficient, the US can bail out and still win, simply providing air cover.

"it took Sistani 4 minutes."

So a diplomatic solution was found instead of a military solution. Some people think diplomacy is better than war.

"If Sistani were a friend of the New Iraq he would visit Allawi,which he hasn't."

He presumably doesn't want to appear to be a puppet of Allawi, and he wants it to be clear that he opposed Al Sadr after his own independent analysis. After listening to the people of Najaf complaining about Al Sadr's crimes.

"I regret to say that EVERYTHING IS NOT UNDER CONTROL."

It is completely and utterly under control. The job is nearly done. ie the job of handing the job to the ING, so that they can finish the rest of the war of bringing law and order and democracy to Iraq.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"There is nothing stopping the US from flying a B2 bomber over North Korea and dropping a nuke on it. It will not even be detected. The North Koreans don't have a radar that can detect a B2 bomber. If the North Koreans wanted to defend against the US, they needed to spend a LOT more money so that they can prepare for such stealth attacks. They have failed to do so. So they have already lost. If they want to restrict the war to conventional, then that too is the same result. Kim is dead. It's that simple. The war has already been won, and it was won economically. Actually, both economically and diplomatically. Because the people who could have opposed the US and prevented the US from attacking North Korea, are the Europeans. The Europeans needed to match US military spending. The Europeans failed to do this, because US diplomacy got them to JOIN the US instead of OPPOSING the US. Thus America has completely slam-dunked the world."
You're power mad. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Just give me a number. Imagine you were a small country like Australia." Country?It is a collection of 100000000 sheep.

"No, this is why the enemy is dangerous, and needs to be defeated before they attack again."
Your real goal should be to sanitize the ME, with gas chambers. Fear has made you homocidal.

"Of course not. But once a dictator (local or foreign) controls Australia, Australians lose all rights. It doesn't make any difference if it is a local like Saddam or foreigners like Japan. I do not want to live in an environment where the government can rape my daughter legally. I would rather take a 90% chance of death than be in that situation. What percentage chance are you willing to take?"
You're obsessed with rape. Like I said if the enemy gets too close, use your last few bullets to save your family from dishonor and save one for yourself.

"When was the last time you saw a reporter on TV asking Kerry why he came up with the "Christmas in Cambodia" lie?" If the media is suppressing the slander than why is it parroted everywhere by right wing thugs like you?

"No they're not. He hasn't signed the form (108 or something) that allows them to be released."
You're lying Kerry's records were released in April.

"And where are the witnesses to John Kerry-Rambo's Cambodia escapades?"
Because of your irrelevant pestering, I haven't bothered to look. Notice you dodged the record of Bush the born-again AWOL drunk/crack head. Bush--the hero from zero.

"They made tactical mistakes for sure."
Like the time they entered Laos with US air support and got their butts kicked-lost about 20000 ARVN. What, the planes didn't do the trick?

"Russia invaded Poland, which is what started WWII. Germany did as well. They were allies."
I got to tell someone about this boner. You're a regular dunce. Germany attacked Poland, and war was declared by UK, France, about 3 weeks into it the Russians grabbed their piece. They didn't start anything.

"Agreement with who? You want me to get permission of human rights abusers before I can change the law so that human rights absuses are not allowed? That's Catch-22. As far as I'm concerned, they are illegitimate and I'm not interested in their opinion. I'm only interested in toppling them. If they can abuse the human rights of their own people, then they would have no problem doing it to me as well, if they ever find a way of conquering me. My intention is to conquer them in advance."
You're a law unto yourself.You and Charles Bronson.

"This is not true. What is it you would like to know that no-one will tell you?"
You're just a sheep..EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL baaahhhh.

"I don't swallow their stuff. I independently come to that conclusion. I do not like dictators. I do not trust dictators."
Yet you trust dictator Bush.
"Some dictators I can make a guess that they're not dangerous, e.g. Burma, but even those I want to topple. I can't see any reason why I should put up with any doubt, and nor do I see a reason to allow them to abuse their own citizens."
I feel that way about Bush, maybe you can get rid of America's Fuhrer.

"No it wouldn't. The real war would start instead. Slaughtering Muslims. To date, all this pussy-footing around has been in order to avoid the real war. It is my belief that the real war can be avoided with tact."
This is your goal, to exterminate Muslims who you fear.

"What is it that Sistani is doing that is against the interests of the Iraqi people? BTW, I thought Allawi was a US puppet. Now he's a Sistani puppet? Can you guys get a common position on this?"
Did I flip-flop? Not really. I am a secular, he is a religious. Religion is the opium of the people. I never said Allawi was a US puppet-indeed I pray that he is not. Sistani does not like puppetry of any kind. Allawi lost an opportunity to be a real leader of the Iraqi people by defeating Sadr.

"Sadr didn't need to be handled. What was required was the logistics to remain uninterrupted to allow the ING to be recruited and trained. This was done. That was 3 months breathing space. That was crucial. Every day is crucial in fact, because every day more ING come online. This is where the real war is. As soon as the ING numbers are sufficient, the US can bail out and still win, simply providing air cover."
So when and where will the crack ING troops go into action against the enemy?

"So a diplomatic solution was found instead of a military solution. Some people think diplomacy is better than war." Surrender to a bandit is termed 'diplomacy' by you. Ach du liebe I forgot, this is the outcome you WANTED!

"He presumably doesn't want to appear to be a puppet of Allawi, and he wants it to be clear that he opposed Al Sadr after his own independent analysis. After listening to the people of Najaf complaining about Al Sadr's crimes."
He prefers Muqtada to Allawi, that seems normal to you?

"It is completely and utterly under control. The job is nearly done. ie the job of handing the job to the ING, so that they can finish the rest of the war of bringing law and order and democracy to Iraq." You are such an arrogant little colonialist, ain't ya guv'nor. Good show, old' chap, Hip hip hurrah and all that sort of rot!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"You're power mad. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You're American. You tell me. Should I fear the fact that America has the ability to nuke Australia, and we have no way to retaliate? Or what about our friends in New Zealand, who were kicked out of ANZUS. Should they fear the wrath of America? Do you plan to conquer New Zealand and rape their women? What nefarious plans do your countrymen have? How many of your friends, both Republican and Democrats, wish to rape NZ women, or even worse, NZ sheep?

"Your real goal should be to sanitize the ME, with gas chambers. Fear has made you homocidal."

It is both fear and humanism. As far as I'm concerned, people like Ali at ITM have the right to be protected by the Australian armed forces from whatever non-humanists wish harm on him. And I fear his enemies too.

"You're obsessed with rape."

You can replace rape with having my ears chopped off by the government, if that makes you feel better. I do not want to live in an environment where my government may chop off my ears with impunity.

"Like I said if the enemy gets too close, use your last few bullets to save your family from dishonor and save one for yourself."

It doesn't work that way. The enemy is approaching, and my country can defeat him, but I personally have a 90% chance of dying in the process. Only 10% of the country will survive. Fight or surrender? What's your choice? I am from Australia, not the Alamo, so my tolerance of risk ends at about 90%. Where are you from?

PE:"When was the last time you saw a reporter on TV asking Kerry why he came up with the "Christmas in Cambodia" lie?"

"If the media is suppressing the slander than why is it parroted everywhere by right wing thugs like you?"

I found out via blogs, which have broken the back of mainstream media for anyone who wants to know, and I also watch Fox News. I asked the question about the mainstream liberal media. Please answer.

http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/08/near-total-media-failure.html

PE:"No they're not. He hasn't signed the form (108 or something) that allows them to be released."

"You're lying Kerry's records were released in April."

It is form 180, not 108. See here for details:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/vets200405041615.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38682

PE:"And where are the witnesses to John Kerry-Rambo's Cambodia escapades?"

"Because of your irrelevant pestering, I haven't bothered to look."

Please answer. We're all waiting to know the details. In fact, we're asking for the liberal media to even find the backbone to ask the tough questions, regardless of their personal biasses.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_08_15.PHP#002354

"everything but actually responding in any sort of substantial way"

"Notice you dodged the record of Bush the born-again AWOL drunk/crack head. Bush--the hero from zero."

My arguments are unchanged even if Bush were a current crack-head drunk. Even if he drank his own piss like Gandhi. Even if he escaped to Canada to avoid service. My arguments are mostly based on policy rather than personal courage or criminal history. I would probably stomach Kerry being a self-confessed war criminal, if I liked his policies. It would be tough, but I would choose the lesser of two evils. Better to get the correct policies for the long term, rather than get hung up about how many women Kerry raped in Vietnam, or how many limbs he chopped off.

"Like the time they entered Laos with US air support and got their butts kicked-lost about 20000 ARVN. What, the planes didn't do the trick?"

Attacking and defending are different. NVA tanks attacking South Vietnam in 1975 would have been completely decimated by US air power. The US watched and did nothing. Half of America had the audacity to cheer for the NVA tanks. It was the lowest point in America's modern history. One day America needs to recognize this, hang its head in shame, and apologize to the innocent people of South Vietnam.

"I got to tell someone about this boner. You're a regular dunce. Germany attacked Poland, and war was declared by UK, France, about 3 weeks into it the Russians grabbed their piece. They didn't start anything."

They had advance agreement with Hitler to do this. Just because they did their bit a little bit later, so what?

"You're a law unto yourself.You and Charles Bronson."

That law, objectively, is more moral than that of the United Nations Security Council. Until the law is changed, I refuse to abide by what I consider to be an immoral law. The German Nazis were unable to use the "only following orders" excuse too.

PE:"This is not true. What is it you would like to know that no-one will tell you?"

"You're just a sheep..EVERYTHING IS UNDER CONTROL baaahhhh."

I actually said this myself. The administration won't make bold statements like that, they are very cautious not to go out on a limb. I don't need to be cautious. So, I don't know who you think my shepherd is.

"Yet you trust dictator Bush."

Actually I don't trust Bush. What I trust is the checks and balances that have been put into the American government, and indeed, every other first world government, so that some tinpot dictator doesn't get control of the US armed forces, as Saddam got control of Iraq's armed forces. What I trust is the humanism of the American military, such that they would disobey any order that required them to subjugate not just Americans, but even Australians. Power corrupts. I do not trust Bush to remain a decent guy if his power was unconstrained. He may or may not. I don't know. History is littered with good people turned into despots.

PE:"Some dictators I can make a guess that they're not dangerous, e.g. Burma, but even those I want to topple. I can't see any reason why I should put up with any doubt, and nor do I see a reason to allow them to abuse their own citizens."

"I feel that way about Bush, maybe you can get rid of America's Fuhrer."

You have a right to not live in fear of Bush. This election is no longer in doubt, Bush is going to win. So let us discuss why you fear Bush, and what can be done to relieve your fear of him. As far as I am concerned, he has a responsibility to alleviate your fears. What would you like him to do to allay your concerns? You can't kick him out of office, and you can't change his policies. But if you fear him being a tinpot dictator, then please let me know what you would like done.

"This is your goal, to exterminate Muslims who you fear."

My goal is to exterminate non-humanist Muslims, like Saddam, who I did indeed fear, and who humanist Muslims, like Ali at ITM, also feared. Not just Muslims though. Non-humanist commies like Kim in North Korea are also on the chopping block. And even a non-humanist like Aristide or Mugabe. Oh, one small thing - I may simply convert the non-humanists to humanists rather than exterminate them, or I may allow them to die out, so long as the problem ends with their children. This is TBD. I am going to speak to the humanist Ali about this after he becomes PM of Iraq.

"Allawi lost an opportunity to be a real leader of the Iraqi people by defeating Sadr."

He instead preserved the Imam Ali shrine. Given that Allawi is due to step down in a short time, I don't particularly care if Allawi gets a bad rap. He is only there to win the war. The people of Iraq will decide what sort of leader they want. The Imam Ali shrine won't factor into the equation for the next PM though.

"So when and where will the crack ING troops go into action against the enemy?"

The crack troops are there. The best way to use crack troops is to use the threat of them rather than actually deploy them. This is already being done, and the enemy is being offered carrots to surrender. And they are surrendering. There will presumably be some suicidal holdouts at the end of the process. That's where the ING goes in. There are far more crack US troops than there are crack ING troops, so the US should take the heavy burden, and let the ING finish the job. This was the intention at the Imam Ali mosque. All the ING troops were being spared for a military assault. Al Sadr took the carrot instead of finding out how effective the ING has become.

"Surrender to a bandit is termed 'diplomacy' by you."

It is not surrender. Territory and other things were won.

"He prefers Muqtada to Allawi, that seems normal to you?"

Sistani does not prefer Muqtada to Allawi. That is why he said "everyone should obey the law". This is diplospeak for "I hate Muqtada".

PE:"It is completely and utterly under control. The job is nearly done. ie the job of handing the job to the ING, so that they can finish the rest of the war of bringing law and order and democracy to Iraq."

"You are such an arrogant little colonialist, ain't ya guv'nor."

You may consider ending a holocaust and introducing freedom of speech as a colonial act. I consider it to be the best humanitarian aid you can give strangers, and is the most noble thing anyone has done in the 21st century. Thanks America. Thanks Bush.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"How many of your friends, both Republican and Democrats, wish to rape NZ women, or even worse, NZ sheep?" You're wacko.

"It is both fear and humanism. As far as I'm concerned, people like Ali at ITM have the right to be protected by the Australian armed forces from whatever non-humanists wish harm on him. And I fear his enemies too." Fear and humanism are incompatible.

"You can replace rape with having my ears chopped off by the government, if that makes you feel better. I do not want to live in an environment where my government may chop off my ears with impunity."
Yes, your government chopping your earsoff is much more tolerable. I agree to your suggestion.

" The enemy is approaching, and my country can defeat him, but I personally have a 90% chance of dying in the process. Only 10% of the country will survive. Fight or surrender? What's your choice? I am from Australia, not the Alamo, so my tolerance of risk ends at about 90%. Where are you from?" This was the logic of the kamikazis. You're what Rumsfeld used to call a Baathist 'dead-ender'. A liberal-democratic kamikazi--you blow my mind.

"I found out via blogs, which have broken the back of mainstream media for anyone who wants to know, and I also watch Fox News. I asked the question about the mainstream liberal media. Please answer."
Yeah, cool..they got blogs that say the Jewish Holocaust never happened and about UFOs too. I put FOX News in the same category-"We report You decide!!" The answer is nobody cares about your question-"Why would Kerry lie about being in Cambodia"[this is it, correct?]. Why would Bush say that the war on terror is unwinnable then flip-flop? 'Kids( you too) say the darnest things.'
It has been established that Kerry served in that area and it is not unlikely that he could have stepped into Cambodian territory at about that time. The statement could have been hyperbole(like you) or an actual fact. I think the media just doesn't care-but you do.Who are you?

http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/08/near-total-media-failure.html.It is form 180, not 108..
Why would I visit rightist blogs? Unlike you my time is worth something.Well..not so much tht I won't blog against you!

"In fact, we're asking for the liberal media to even find the backbone to ask the tough questions, regardless of their personal biasses."
I dunno, why doesn't the rightwing media find out?

"My arguments are unchanged even if Bush were a current crack-head drunk."
An issue man, huh? So your position on the importance of the candidate's personal character is unimportant to you(good for Bush).
"Better to get the correct policies for the long term, rather than get hung up about how many women Kerry raped in Vietnam, or how many limbs he chopped off."
I thought you were going to talk about ear chopping not rape,..your word can't be trusted, mate.

"Half of America had the audacity to cheer for the NVA tanks." Hm..I was alive then, were there parties or something? Must have missed them.

"They had advance agreement with Hitler to do this. Just because they did their bit a little bit later, so what?"
You lied and got caught, your response.."so what?"
You said Russia attacks started WW2 which was wrong-now apologize! You could have exaggerated to make your point but I think you were lying. Prove your statement. Am I going to have to contact Fox News about this?
"That law, objectively, is more moral than that of the United Nations Security Council." The German Nazis were unable to use the "only following orders" excuse too."
You only obey laws you agree with-no surprise here. That's the law of the jungle.

"What I trust is the humanism of the American military, such that they would disobey any order that required them to subjugate not just Americans, but even Australians."
Where was the humanity of the US military in WW2 when they rounded up 200000 Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
Ridiculous, the US military is not humanistic, it follows orders.
" I can't see any reason why I should put up with any doubt, and nor do I see a reason to allow them to abuse their own citizens." Doubt? You remind me of the old Mel Brooks joke, "Minds..ve have no minds, ve are Nazis!"

"You have a right to not live in fear of Bush."
Thank you. Now please dispatch the SAS to liberate the American people from this tyrant.
"This election is no longer in doubt, Bush is going to win."
You're not a doubter..you're a 'true believer'.
"So let us discuss why you fear Bush, and what can be done to relieve your fear of him. As far as I am concerned, he has a responsibility to alleviate your fears."
'Alleviate my fears'? As in what lies could he tell me to win me over to him? Did you see the GOP hate-fest/convention???? They don't understand your 'responsibilty to alleviate' idea.
"You can't kick him out of office, and you can't change his policies. But if you fear him being a tinpot dictator, then please let me know what you would like done." Will you intercede with the God Bush on the behalf of the American people? You are truly great and good My Lord Edwards.
"My goal is to exterminate non-humanist Muslims, like Saddam, who I did indeed fear, and who humanist Muslims, like Ali at ITM, also feared."
Like I said. No wait there's more.
" Not just Muslims though. Non-humanist commies like Kim in North Korea are also on the chopping block. And even a non-humanist like Aristide or Mugabe...Oh, one small thing - I may simply convert the non-humanists to humanists rather than exterminate them, or I may allow them to die out, so long as the problem ends with their children. This is TBD. I am going to speak to the humanist Ali about this after he becomes PM of Iraq." Is this an exageration? Or are you just nuts?

"He instead preserved the Imam Ali shrine. Given that Allawi is due to step down in a short time, I don't particularly care if Allawi gets a bad rap. He is only there to win the war. The people of Iraq will decide what sort of leader they want. The Imam Ali shrine won't factor into the equation for the next PM though...It is completely and utterly under control. The job is nearly done. ie the job of handing the job to the ING, so that they can finish the rest of the war of bringing law and order and democracy to Iraq."

Muqtada is out blasting America and Allawi again to his millions of Iraqi fans and rejoicing in his victory, still think you called this correctly?

"Sistani does not prefer Muqtada to Allawi. That is why he said "everyone should obey the law". This is diplospeak for "I hate Muqtada"."
You haven't a clue.

"You may consider ending a holocaust and introducing freedom of speech as a colonial act."
The horror and holocaust continues in Iraq. Like your hero Bush, you want to say "Mission Acccomplished". Except it ain't.
"Thanks America. Thanks Bush."
Thanks to the Commonwealth of Australia for giving us the "Voice of Paul Edwards".
 
_____________________________________________________________________

PE:"How many of your friends, both Republican and Democrats, wish to rape NZ women, or even worse, NZ sheep?"

"You're wacko."

No, I'm safe. I live under the global security umbrella provided by the United States of America. My friend and ally. The country that saved our butts at the Battle of the Coral Sea. The country that saved our butts during the Cold War. The second greatest country in the world. Thanks America! Thanks for my freedom. I love you, and will love you forever.

PE:"It is both fear and humanism. As far as I'm concerned, people like Ali at ITM have the right to be protected by the Australian armed forces from whatever non-humanists wish harm on him. And I fear his enemies too."

"Fear and humanism are incompatible."

Wrong. Fear of non-humanists is perfectly natural for a humanist.

PE:"I am from Australia, not the Alamo, so my tolerance of risk ends at about 90%. Where are you from?"

"This was the logic of the kamikazis."

Wrong. Alamo=kamikazi=100% risk. Australia=90% risk. What's America-sans-Alamo's risk? What's your risk? Estimate please.

"You're what Rumsfeld used to call a Baathist 'dead-ender'. A liberal-democratic kamikazi--you blow my mind."

You don't value freedom. I pity you.

"The answer is nobody cares about your question-"Why would Kerry lie about being in Cambodia"[this is it, correct?]"

Yes, that's the question. And you're wrong about no-one interested in the answer. If you want to change Republicans, you need to answer this question. We're all waiting.

"Why would Bush say that the war on terror is unwinnable then flip-flop?"

You can never stop a lone man with a knife from committing terrorism/murder. That's life I'm afraid.

PE:"In fact, we're asking for the liberal media to even find the backbone to ask the tough questions, regardless of their personal biasses."

"I dunno, why doesn't the rightwing media find out?"

Kerry won't answer and his team won't answer. They are all trying to deflect the question and hope that no-one notices the question is being deflected.

PE:"My arguments are unchanged even if Bush were a current crack-head drunk."

"An issue man, huh? So your position on the importance of the candidate's personal character is unimportant to you(good for Bush)"

I would prefer he wasn't a self-confessed war criminal, but sometimes there are only bad things to choose between, and it is necessary to take the least worst option. This is not one of those times.

"You said Russia attacks started WW2 which was wrong-now apologize!"

I am sorry, I apologize. What I meant was that WWII was started because both Hitler and Stalin made a secret agreement to invade Poland.

"You only obey laws you agree with-no surprise here. That's the law of the jungle."

No, I refuse to obey unconscionable laws. This precedent was set by the allies after WWII.

"Where was the humanity of the US military in WW2 when they rounded up 200000 Japanese Americans and put them in camps."

This was semi-necessary in order to protect everyone during WWII. Australia did the same thing. Afterwards, they are released. Quite frankly, if Australia deems that the best contribution that German Australians can make to their country during wartime is to stay in a safe place miles away from the frontline, they should consider themselves damned lucky. After the war is won, they remain alive, unlike the non-German Australians.

"Ridiculous, the US military is not humanistic, it follows orders."

Wrong. It is required to disobey illegal orders. Do you actually know any US soldiers?

"Will you intercede with the God Bush on the behalf of the American people? You are truly great and good My Lord Edwards."

Yes. I will organize a coalition of the entire free world to come and liberate you from an American dictator. I recommend you scrap your nukes though. I can't get past them. You've slit your own throat unless you scrap your nukes.

"Muqtada is out blasting America and Allawi again to his millions of Iraqi fans and rejoicing in his victory, still think you called this correctly?"

Yep. He calls for armed revolt, he's dead. Iraqi law has now been extended to Al Sadr. That was a crucial victory in OIF.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"No, I'm safe. I live under the global security umbrella provided by the United States of America. My friend and ally. The country that saved our butts at the Battle of the Coral Sea. The country that saved our butts during the Cold War. The second greatest country in the world. Thanks America! Thanks for my freedom. I love you, and will love you forever."
And we hate you, sychophantic Bush-lover.

"Wrong. Fear of non-humanists is perfectly natural for a humanist." Wrong yourself. Humanists look for answers in the real world and reject policies solely based on irrational fears.
Fear is not a product of understanding.

"Estimate please." I estimate the number of outright fanatics in the US to be 25% which you say is a lot less than Australia. Go Aussies!

"You don't value freedom. I pity you."
I pity the helpless ovine freedom of the Commonwealth of Australia.

"Yes, that's the question. And you're wrong about no-one interested in the answer. If you want to change Republicans, you need to answer this question. We're all waiting."
Change Republicans??We? You and what other kangeroo?

"You can never stop a lone man with a knife from committing terrorism/murder. That's life I'm afraid."
He clearly flip-flopped. Oh, the shame of it!

"Kerry won't answer and his team won't answer. They are all trying to deflect the question and hope that no-one notices the question is being deflected." You didn't answer my question where is Fox News on this?
"I would prefer he wasn't a self-confessed war criminal, but sometimes there are only bad things to choose between, and it is necessary to take the least worst option. This is not one of those times." Fortunately, you don't have standing to say anything on Kerry. You probably don't even vote in your own election.

"I am sorry, I apologize." Excellent..now keep it up.

"This was semi-necessary in order to protect everyone during WWII. Australia did the same thing. Afterwards, they are released. Quite frankly, if Australia deems that the best contribution that German Australians can make to their country during wartime is to stay in a safe place miles away from the frontline, they should consider themselves damned lucky. After the war is won, they remain alive, unlike the non-German Australians." Such reasoning could be easily used by Nazi apologists. 'If Germany deems that the best contribution that German Jews can make to their country during wartime is to stay in a safe place miles away from the frontline, they should consider themselves damned lucky.'Yes, that seems to fit. BTW, the Nazis had a model camp for propaganda called 'Therisienstadt" in an old casle. They were also claimed they were only protecting Jews!

"Do you actually know any US soldiers?" In person, my cousin was an officer with the 101st Airborne in Iraq but I haven't seen him in years. I email with a marine serving in Iraq on the ITM. And you?

"Yes. I will organize a coalition of the entire free world to come and liberate you from an American dictator. I recommend you scrap your nukes though. I can't get past them. You've slit your own throat unless you scrap your nukes."
Okay...I'm waiting.

"Yep. He calls for armed revolt, he's dead[theorectically? or are you exaggerating again?]. Iraqi law has now been extended to Al Sadr. That was a crucial victory in OIF."
Nope. He got a pass. OIF is a failure. Samara just joined with Fallujah in expelling the MNF and Iraqi government representatives.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"And we hate you, sychophantic Bush-lover."

Wrong. We're loved by everyone. And if anyone is sychophantic, it is America. America bends over backwards for the entire world. Thanks America, we recognize and appreciate it.

PE:"Wrong. Fear of non-humanists is perfectly natural for a humanist."

"Wrong yourself. Humanists look for answers in the real world and reject policies solely based on irrational fears. Fear is not a product of understanding."

We do understand the threat from non-humanists, and it isn't irrational.

"I estimate the number of outright fanatics in the US to be 25% which you say is a lot less than Australia. Go Aussies!"

Ok, and the Iraqis got their freedom for just 0.1% loss. Wow!

"You probably don't even vote in your own election."

I do federally. The local election I always fill in the form to say I was sick so that I don't get fined. State I try to remember.

PE:"Do you actually know any US soldiers?"

"In person, my cousin was an officer with the 101st Airborne in Iraq but I haven't seen him in years. I email with a marine serving in Iraq on the ITM."

And would these people blindly follow orders to subjugate the US people or Australians?

"And you?"

The ones I email are decent people who I trust to not subjugate me. They'd defend me instead.

"Okay...I'm waiting."

You have to explain what you need liberating from. You have the right to vote and you have freedom of speech to state your case. What more do you actually require?

"Yep. He calls for armed revolt, he's dead[theorectically? or are you exaggerating again?]."

Nope, he'll be dead or locked up next time guaranteed.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"Wrong. We're loved by everyone. " So Bush is loved by everyone. Got it! Is that a lie ore are you exaggerating again?

"We do understand the threat from non-humanists, and it isn't irrational." Paaaalease! You're no humanist[not even humane]. You have no interest in human values, only in your God Bush's reelection so your counter-terror campaign can go on conquering the world.

"Ok, and the Iraqis got their freedom for just 0.1% loss. Wow!" So that was an Australian show, right?

"I do federally. The local election I always fill in the form to say I was sick so that I don't get fined. State I try to remember." Always, huh? Nice democratic values, lying to get out of voting.

"And would these people blindly follow orders to subjugate the US people or Australians?" Yes, to US people like during VietNam-like at Kent State. I generally don't blame soldiers I blame politicans.

"The ones I email are decent people who I trust to not subjugate me. They'd defend me instead."
So Ali will raise a gun to defend the Commonwealth of Australia? I'll have to tell him that one!
"You have to explain what you need liberating from. You have the right to vote and you have freedom of speech to state your case. What more do you actually require?" Bush's warmongering and weakening of the USA, subverting the constitution with big brother oversight of US citizens, giving my money to relgious groups,etc. Americans are too weak to deal with Bush so you must liberate us from this cruel tyrant, Lord Edward.
"Nope, he'll be dead or locked up next time guaranteed." He says the Al-Mehdi army is undefeated. Are you afraid of his turban?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

The death rattle of the left-wing rhetoric is beautiful to behold. :-)

"You're no humanist[not even humane]. You have no interest in human values, only in your God Bush's reelection so your counter-terror campaign can go on conquering the world."

I am a humanist. E.g. I believe women shouldn't be raped, not even Iraqi women. But the feminazis don't care. They're just interested in getting some left-wing government elected so that they can steal other people's money.

"Yes, to US people like during VietNam-like at Kent State. I generally don't blame soldiers I blame politicans."

That wasn't subjugation. People have the right to have freedom of speech, not freedom of action.

"So Ali will raise a gun to defend the Commonwealth of Australia? I'll have to tell him that one!"

Don't tell him, go and ask him. He's my brother forever.

PE:"You have to explain what you need liberating from. You have the right to vote and you have freedom of speech to state your case. What more do you actually require?"

"Bush's warmongering and weakening of the USA, subverting the constitution with big brother oversight of US citizens, giving my money to relgious groups,etc."

Sorry, I don't see any violations of human rights there. Did he rape you or anything like that? Saddam did. That's why I decided to liberate Iraq instead of USA.

"Americans are too weak"

What do you mean? You just need to be able to walk to your local polling booth if you don't like it. If you are incapacitated you can arrange a postal vote. Can't get fairer than that.

PE:"Nope, he'll be dead or locked up next time guaranteed."

"He says the Al-Mehdi army is undefeated. Are you afraid of his turban?"

Nope. But he's too stupid to be scared of JDAMs. I don't think he's familiar with modern military doctrine. War is a science. Turbans don't win wars. Science and money do.

Yee ha! The free world wins the battle of the ideas! I didn't think you could find a way to spin the Iraqi holocaust as something to be protected. Well done for managing to use sleight of hand for as long as you did since Vietnam. :-)
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
The death rattle of the left-wing rhetoric is beautiful to behold. :-)
"In the US the election is close and powers of rightist propaganda(you) are lying in overdrive to terrorize the American people into supporting a dimwitted drunk. The final reach is always the same, "Don't bother to vote because we've already won, yea ha!!" Except you haven't. Keep on screeching, you boob! I'm content to await the final result.

"I am a humanist." You're a proven liar, a psychopath( at Kurdos) and sexually obsessed with rape.
"They're just interested in getting some left-wing government elected so that they can steal other people's money." Prove it!

"That wasn't subjugation. People have the right to have freedom of speech, not freedom of action."They have a right to assemble and protest and not get shot.

"Don't tell him, go and ask him. He's my brother forever." I'll tell him that too, Brother Paul.
"Sorry, I don't see any violations of human rights there. Did he rape you or anything like that? Saddam did." Do you have a list of women raped by Saddam or is that an exaggeration?
"That's why I decided to liberate Iraq instead of USA." But you're just a f*kin' kangeroo!

"What do you mean? You just need to be able to walk to your local polling booth if you don't like it. If you are incapacitated you can arrange a postal vote. Can't get fairer than that." I do vote, even in local elections and don't even bother to lie. The problem is Bush is tampering with my vote. In Florida, they have new hi-tech voting machines that don't allow for any recount-now all Jeb Bush needs to do is press a button and instant victory, hallelujah!

"Nope. But he's too stupid to be scared of JDAMs. I don't think he's familiar with modern military doctrine. War is a science. Turbans don't win wars. Science and money do."
Right, he's the stupid one. He walks away from the Najaf bunker with a cut on the hand and is now the most popular politican in Iraq. Dumb, dumb Sadr! Yet Iraqi's are saying Dumb, dumb Bush!
Bush in Arabic means fart, correct?

"Yee ha! The free world wins the battle of the ideas! I didn't think you could find a way to spin the Iraqi holocaust as something to be protected. Well done for managing to use sleight of hand for as long as you did since Vietnam."
There was a famous photo in the US of a rel-elected Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Tribune newspaper with the banner headline screaming"Dewey Wins!" Your hysterical voice and the GOP will lose.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"In the US the election is close and powers of rightist propaganda(you) are lying in overdrive to terrorize the American people into supporting a dimwitted drunk."

It was Kerry who lied, Christmas in Cambodia etc. Porkies don't get any bigger than Rambo legends gone mad. The attack on Bush's driving record is irrelevant as far as Iraq policy is concerned (or any serious policy matter in fact).

"You're a proven liar, a psychopath( at Kurdos) and sexually obsessed with rape."

Not even communists carried out rape in their gulags. Not even Hitler did. Saddam was a level of atrocity beyond anything we have had an opportunity to end. You'd rather attack my talking about it, than actually end it. You have lost contact with reality. You are spouting left-wing propaganda instead of actually addressing the issues. You do not even know what truth is.

"Do you have a list of women raped by Saddam or is that an exaggeration?"

You have now entered the realm of holocaust-denier. Saddam's list of atrocities, of which rape was just one of them, is documented here, if you want more details.

http://iraqiholocaust.blogspot.com/

I simply put an end to such atrocities whenever there is an opportunity. It is not complicated. It's the only humane thing to do.

"In Florida, they have new hi-tech voting machines that don't allow for any recount-now all Jeb Bush needs to do is press a button and instant victory, hallelujah!"

Were these new voting machines OKed by the Democrats? If so, you're just making stuff up. Are the Democrats claiming fraud in advance now? You don't care what lies you have to tell in order to win, do you? Straight out of Chomsky. Chomsky was happy to praise the Khmer Rouge too. All in an effort to be able to steal other people's money back in America. Couldn't give a rat's arse about the Cambodian people. You people are unbelievable.

"Your hysterical voice and the GOP will lose."

The total disregard for other humans in the world is something I simply can't understand. People are hoping for a civil war in Iraq so that Bush will lose. What happens to the Iraqi people is of zero interest. I can't understand it. Were you or were you not raised by your parents that all people are created equal and we should try to help those less fortunate than ourselves? Why do the Iraqi people not matter? I just can't understand. I would consider this to be sociopathic behaviour, except that it doesn't explain how half of America and the vast majority of Europe would be doing the same thing. I can't believe that there are so many sociopaths in America. Can you tell me the inside story on that one? Humanity stops at the US border? But how does that explain aid to Africa? Happy to do that, right? But not end a holocaust? I cannot comprehend how you can be so heartless towards other human beings. Do you not have empathy?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"It was Kerry who lied, Christmas in Cambodia etc. Porkies don't get any bigger than Rambo legends gone mad." Not Rambo, that's Arnold lying about Soviet tanks in his 'hood.
"The attack on Bush's driving record is irrelevant as far as Iraq policy is concerned (or any serious policy matter in fact)." How about his mysterious natonal guard service record with almost no one there remembering his AWOL service.
"Bush's National Guard File Missing Records

1 hour, 28 minutes ago

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush (news - web sites)'s Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, according to regulations and outside experts."
American's care about draft dodging hypocrites like Bush-Cheney too.

"Not even communists carried out rape in their gulags. Not even Hitler did. Saddam was a level of atrocity beyond anything we have had an opportunity to end. You'd rather attack my talking about it, than actually end it. You have lost contact with reality. You are spouting left-wing propaganda instead of actually addressing the issues. You do not even know what truth is."
Yes I do, and you shoud try it for a change.

"Do you have a list of women raped by Saddam or is that an exaggeration?"
I said "NAME THE WOMEN PERSONALLY RAPED BY SADDAM!!" I'm tired of your exaggerations. I know Saddam murdered killed and his minions did worse besides, but I see I must focus your wild allegations. Just admit you are exaggerating the story of Saddam personally raping women as usual and apologize.
http://iraqiholocaust.blogspot.com/
I have been there many times. No record of Saddam personally raping. Prove your charge, or apologize to Saddam for your slanderous personal allegation! I shall send your apology to AL-Jazeera for publication to the Arab masses.

"I simply put an end to such atrocities whenever there is an opportunity. It is not complicated. It's the only humane thing to do."
Right, Paul Edwards the Sun-King.

"Were these new voting machines OKed by the Democrats? If so, you're just making stuff up. Are the Democrats claiming fraud in advance now? You don't care what lies you have to tell in order to win, do you? Straight out of Chomsky. Chomsky was happy to praise the Khmer Rouge too. All in an effort to be able to steal other people's money back in America. Couldn't give a rat's arse about the Cambodian people. You people are unbelievable."
'Problems Abound in Election System

Sun Sep 5, 1:00 AM ET Add Technology - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!


By Jo Becker and Dan Keating, Washington Post Staff Writers

When Americans go to the polls in November to elect a president, they will confront a voting system beset by many of the same problems that produced the bitterly disputed outcome four years ago and led to a 36-day legal standoff ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.' Of course you don't care about democracy in America, only your precious war of extermination in the ME.

"The total disregard for other humans in the world is something I simply can't understand. People are hoping for a civil war in Iraq so that Bush will lose. What happens to the Iraqi people is of zero interest. I can't understand it. Were you or were you not raised by your parents that all people are created equal and we should try to help those less fortunate than ourselves? Why do the Iraqi people not matter? I just can't understand. I would consider this to be sociopathic behaviour, except that it doesn't explain how half of America and the vast majority of Europe would be doing the same thing. I can't believe that there are so many sociopaths in America. Can you tell me the inside story on that one? Humanity stops at the US border? But how does that explain aid to Africa? Happy to do that, right? But not end a holocaust? I cannot comprehend how you can be so heartless towards other human beings. Do you not have empathy?"
No one cares as much as the heroic Lord Paul Edwards! No one understands the needs of the Iraqi or American people as you do! No one has the infinite power that you have, directing the motions of nations and armies. You deserve a suitable reward. You shall be deified and we shall all burn incense before your holy image. The image of a kangeroo in purest gold.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

PE:"It was Kerry who lied, Christmas in Cambodia etc."

"Arnold lying about Soviet tanks in his 'hood."

The concept is correct. Under communism, people feared being abducted without a trace. It really happened. It was a holocaust.

You've made character assassinations of Bush and Cheney, but as I have already said, I don't care if both of them are cowards and permanently drunk. Their policies are correct, for the reasons given.

"NAME THE WOMEN PERSONALLY RAPED BY SADDAM!!"

He ordered it, he didn't do it personally. Uday did it personally though. Same thing. The government raped Iraqi women, all legally. That is the definition of a holocaust. I don't know their names, I saw an Iraqi interviewed on TV who gave the name of one. They are Iraqi names, I don't know them. Do you understand that personally doing something, and ordering something to be done, is the same thing? Do you understand that hiring a professional rapist is also the equivalent of raping them personally?

"Were these new voting machines OKed by the Democrats?"

You didn't answer this question. I don't want a newspaper report, I want the Democrats to claim the machines are untrustworthy and unacceptable. What is Kerry's position on this?

PE:"Do you not have empathy?"

"No one cares as much as the heroic Lord Paul Edwards!"

First of all, I'm not heroic, the MNF soldiers, the ING and the IP are the heroic ones. All I am doing is saying that their cause is noble.

Secondly, I'm not saying that I care more than others, just that I care. There are other people donating large numbers of toys etc to the Iraqi people. I'm not one of them. I focus my charity on education/institutions, which is why I donated $200 to the IPDP. Some guy cared much more than me and donated $2500. You can see both figures here:

http://donations.iraqdemparty.org/IPDP_Donations.htm

"No one understands the needs of the Iraqi or American people as you do!"

Well, I'm male, but even I understand that women don't like to be raped. I have empathy for rape victims. I ended the environment that harboured state-sanctioned rape.

"You shall be deified and we shall all burn incense before your holy image. The image of a kangeroo in purest gold."

Nobody should be deified. Everyone is fallible. All dogma should end and be replaced with science. This goes for Islam, Christianity or your favourite, Communism. It also goes for the US constitution. Nothing is sacrosanct.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"The concept is correct. Under communism, people feared being abducted without a trace. It really happened. It was a holocaust."
People were abducted in places like Argentina, South Africa and Chile not run by communists. You could oppose all abductions, but instead support death squards for democracy.

"You've made character assassinations of Bush and Cheney, but as I have already said, I don't care if both of them are cowards and permanently drunk. Their policies are correct, for the reasons given."
Bush is a recovering alcoholic who found God and has only one improbable witness(plenty of people in the same unit claim they never saw Bush though) of his NG service. Chickenhawk Cheney avoided duty by getting 5 draft deferments. These are facts not character assasination[although in my eyes, not yours, quite damning].

"He ordered it, he didn't do it personally."
Great, is that your apology to Saddam?

"Uday did it personally though. Same thing. The government raped Iraqi women, all legally. That is the definition of a holocaust. I don't know their names, I saw an Iraqi interviewed on TV who gave the name of one. They are Iraqi names, I don't know them. Do you understand that personally doing something, and ordering something to be done, is the same thing?
Do you understand that hiring a professional rapist is also the equivalent of raping them personally?" It can be equivalent, depends. Conspiracy to commit murder is an exception under US law, conspiracy to commit other crimes (like rape)generally carry lesser punishments than the crimes themselves, depends on degree.

"You didn't answer this question. I don't want a newspaper report, I want the Democrats to claim the machines are untrustworthy and unacceptable."
Democrats ARE complaining to the Florida courts.
"Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood got a legal rebuke Friday in her effort to single-handedly eliminate manual recounts in counties that may account for more than half of the state's votes for president in November. So now the Division of Elections is soliciting ideas from the public. What took her so long?

For more than a year, the Division of Elections — which reports to Ms. Hood, who reports to Gov. Bush — has been ignoring calls from Democrats for a verifiable paper trail."
"What is Kerry's position on this?"
Wait a sec, I'll ask him..

"First of all, I'm not heroic[at least we can agree on that], the MNF soldiers, the ING and the IP are the heroic ones. All I am doing is saying that their cause is noble."
They are doing their jobs, if they don't do their jobs they go to the stockade or get fired. Military will go anywhere the government tells them to go.
"Secondly, I'm not saying that I care more than others, just that I care. There are other people donating large numbers of toys etc to the Iraqi people. I'm not one of them. I focus my charity on education/institutions, which is why I donated $200 to the IPDP. Some guy cared much more than me and donated $2500. You can see both figures here:"
Bravo!But the IPDP is a political party, not an institution. Please send money to Bush too.
"Well, I'm male, but even I understand that women don't like to be raped. I have empathy for rape victims[how about the victims of aerial bombardment?]. I ended the environment that harboured state-sanctioned rape." This always leaves me baffled... how exactly did YOU stop rapes? You don't even have the status of a cheerleader. Go team!

"Nobody should be deified. Everyone is fallible[including the neo-cons?]. All dogma should end and be replaced with science. This goes for Islam, Christianity or your favourite, Communism[you're sure I'm a commie,right?LOL]. It also goes for the US constitution. Nothing is sacrosanct."
What about YOU? What about your liberation credo? Can that be questioned? I thought not.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"People were abducted in places like Argentina, South Africa and Chile not run by communists. You could oppose all abductions, but instead support death squards for democracy."

When fighting a war, it is sometimes necessary to be willing to do whatever the enemy is willing to do. The idea being at the end of the war, you end up with a better ideology than you would have if you handed the keys over to the enemy. This is what happened during the Cold War. There was a holocaust under the USSR's ideology, and there was freedom under USA's ideology. The USA won.

"Democrats ARE complaining to the Florida courts."

SOME Democrats may be complaining. What is the official Democrat position on this? They need to clearly state as a party that they reject the new machines. And preferably get Kerry to say that too. You need to get Kerry to say so NOW, UNEQUIVOCALLY.

http://www.mywebpal.com/news/partners/701/public/news493719.html

And not all Democrats are as concerned as Maddox. Lake County Democratic Party state commiteewoman Nancy Bell is reluctant about criticizing Stegall or her machines. She recalls the problems that optical scanners can have.

“I remember footage of the paper ballots getting stuck and crumpled in machines,” she said. “There are problems there too. There is no perfect system.”


"Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood got a legal rebuke Friday in her effort to single-handedly eliminate manual recounts"

Single-handedly is not good enough. You need the party to complain.

PE:"First of all, I'm not heroic[at least we can agree on that], the MNF soldiers, the ING and the IP are the heroic ones. All I am doing is saying that their cause is noble."

"They are doing their jobs, if they don't do their jobs they go to the stockade or get fired. Military will go anywhere the government tells them to go."

They are heroic for having volunteered to do that.

"Bravo!But the IPDP is a political party, not an institution."

True, but it's policies are likely to be exactly the same as the Australian Liberal Party, so if they get elected, it should create a kick-arse country like Australia.

"Please send money to Bush too."

I nearly donated to the www.swiftvets.com but it wasn't PayPal and they wanted my physical address, which put me off.

PE:"Well, I'm male, but even I understand that women don't like to be raped. I have empathy for rape victims[how about the victims of aerial bombardment?]."

Yes, empathy for them too, which is why I used JDAMs instead of carpet bombing. Now, my question is why don't you have empathy for Saddam's rape victims?

PE:"I ended the environment that harboured state-sanctioned rape."

"This always leaves me baffled... how exactly did YOU stop rapes?"

By voting for John Howard, the pro-war party in Australia. There is an election again in 1 month, and I am voting for him again, and asking everyone I know to vote for him as well, so that Iran, Syria etc etc can also be liberated. And my taxes pay for the Australian SAS that did the actual liberating.

PE:"Nobody should be deified. Everyone is fallible[including the neo-cons?]."

Absolutely. Neo-cons are fallible, and in fact Abu was saying recently that Leeden was complaining about Bush not using enough troops. I disagree with Leeden, so one of us is wrong.

"What about YOU? What about your liberation credo? Can that be questioned? I thought not."

Yes, absolutely. What do you find wrong with liberating people to end state-ordered rape and other elements of the Iraqi holocaust?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"When fighting a war, it is sometimes necessary to be willing to do whatever the enemy is willing to do. The idea being at the end of the war, you end up with a better ideology than you would have if you handed the keys over to the enemy. This is what happened during the Cold War. There was a holocaust under the USSR's ideology, and there was freedom under USA's ideology. The USA won."
To be perfectly honest, the USA had a racist holocaust against native Americans, similar to Australia's holocaust against the aborigines.
"SOME Democrats may be complaining. What is the official Democrat position on this? They need to clearly state as a party that they reject the new machines. And preferably get Kerry to say that too. You need to get Kerry to say so NOW, UNEQUIVOCALLY." What about Bush? His GOP party is is trying to disenfranchaise American voters. Yet as he said, 'let freedom reign'-ding-dong. Please contact your fascist hero IMMEDIATELY and tell him to UNEQUIVOCALLY stop his brother's illegal attempt to steal another election.
I love it when reporters editorialize. The woman was talking about a technology she doesn't like, not that whe agreed with the republicans. “I remember footage of the paper ballots getting stuck and crumpled in machines,” she said. “There are problems there too. There is no perfect system.” This is not the issue I was talking about, bozo. The only technology you need is a printout(receipt) of the actual vote--I get one when I vote(so does the ballot box), but this technology must be too advanced for Florida.
"Single-handedly is not good enough. You need the party to complain." These are US democrats, not Communists-Einstein.You have to read the whole paragraph, Hood is a Bush republican. The court charges her with trying singlehandedly to subvert the election process. But who cares? The end justifies the means!
"They are heroic for having volunteered to do that."
To a point, many are ordinary people (not superhawks) who took the weekend warrior bait to make a tiny bit of cash and now are getting killed. They may be heroes, but villainous politicans like Bush are putting them in harms way. The value of an American soldier or civilian is higher than Bush's reputation.

"True, but it's policies are likely to be exactly the same as the Australian Liberal Party, so if they get elected, it should create a kick-arse country like Australia." 'The Lucky Country'? You kick alot of ass, do you? Arse is for bluenoses.

"I nearly donated to the www.swiftvets.com but it wasn't PayPal and they wanted my physical address, which put me off."
Don't let that put you off, I love the idea of you personally paying for broadcasting lies.

"Yes, empathy for them too, which is why I used JDAMs instead of carpet bombing. Now, my question is why don't you have empathy for Saddam's rape victims?"
What makes you think I don't? The fact that I don't support your military adventures in Iran and Syria? If you did care about Saddam's you should give money to an NGO helping the victims of Saddam's cruelty not propaganda machines. Tell me how much did you give to an NGO?

"By voting for John Howard, the pro-war party in Australia. There is an election again in 1 month, and I am voting for him again, and asking everyone I know to vote for him as well, so that Iran, Syria etc etc can also be liberated. And my taxes pay for the Australian SAS that did the actual liberating." Well, where are you off to invade next with your SAS or (is that ASS)? What new rapes are you going to stop? Don't count on America to help, not that you'll need it. How about Darfur( it even has some oil you said)?

"Yes, absolutely. What do you find wrong with liberating people to end state-ordered rape and other elements of the Iraqi holocaust?" If you're so good why do the Iraqi people hate you? Better move on to the next candidate.
So what exactly are you doing about the Uday of North Korea, Kim-Jong-Il? Where is your empathy? Do you hate Koreans? This is the perfect mission for ASS..sorry SAS.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"To be perfectly honest, the USA had a racist holocaust against native Americans"

Even more reason to do some good deeds in the world to make amends.

"similar to Australia's holocaust against the aborigines."

That's actually left-wing lies.

"Please contact your fascist hero IMMEDIATELY and tell him to UNEQUIVOCALLY stop his brother's illegal attempt to steal another election."

I would do this if Kerry would complain first that he thought it was fraudulent. Get Kerry to go public.

PE:"They are heroic for having volunteered to do that."

"To a point, many are ordinary people (not superhawks) who took the weekend warrior bait to make a tiny bit of cash and now are getting killed. They may be heroes, but villainous politicans like Bush are putting them in harms way. The value of an American soldier or civilian is higher than Bush's reputation."

The majority of them are actually Republicans who want to be there to help the Iraqis to their feet. Don't do these things in the troop's names. Ask them what they want.

"If you did care about Saddam's you should give money to an NGO helping the victims of Saddam's cruelty not propaganda machines. Tell me how much did you give to an NGO?"

I don't give money to NGOs. Plenty of Americans do though. Americans are such nice people. However, I'm smarter than the dumbarse Americans. I give money to institutions so that the institutional change will allow the oil money to be spent on improving the standard of living of the people (ie the same thing that the NGOs do). The Americans are too stupid to realise that the best humanitarian aid you can give is some JDAMs.

"Well, where are you off to invade next with your SAS or (is that ASS)? What new rapes are you going to stop? Don't count on America to help, not that you'll need it. How about Darfur( it even has some oil you said)?"

It'll be either Sudan, Syria or Iran. It's a tough call. Iraq is not quite stable enough yet to be opening a front in Sudan. But I think Sudan should be liberated as a target of opportunity. But the Lebanese elections are a pretty enticing excuse to go into Syria. And Iran's nukes are enticing as well. Honestly, so many targets, not enough bombs!

"If you're so good why do the Iraqi people hate you?"

Because they have poor logic skills. But that's OK, we'll be out of their hair before they know it. In the meantime, we're saying "sorry" a lot.

"Better move on to the next candidate."

I'm rearing to go, trust me.

"So what exactly are you doing about the Uday of North Korea, Kim-Jong-Il? Where is your empathy? Do you hate Koreans? This is the perfect mission for ASS..sorry SAS."

That comes down to a judgement call on whether they have nukes or not, and whether we want to risk destruction of Seoul. No I don't hate Koreans. My opinion is that they probably don't have nukes. So keep it conventional. Withdraw all US troops from South Korea. Bring the carriers up. Blow up NK's oil pipeline. See what happens. It is theoretically impossible to run a modern country without oil.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,

"Even more reason to do some good deeds in the world to make amends." Like invading other countries?

"That's actually left-wing lies." Well that's what the aborigines say, they must be left-wing also. Therefore your can kill those communist bastards:)!

"I would do this if Kerry would complain first that he thought it was fraudulent. Get Kerry to go public."
He just called back...he want's you to proceed posthaste to contact Bush. He even made a full disclosure in the Brisbane Picayune Mail giving you full credit and calling you as the inspiration. Go for it!

"The majority of them are actually Republicans who want to be there to help the Iraqis to their feet. Don't do these things in the troop's names. Ask them what they want." One thing Americans don't need is to take orders from military
juntas. Thanks again for the incredibly bad advice.

"I don't give money to NGOs. Plenty of Americans do though. Americans are such nice people. However, I'm smarter than the dumbarse Americans. I give money to institutions so that the institutional change will allow the oil money to be spent on improving the standard of living of the people (ie the same thing that the NGOs do). The Americans are too stupid to realise that the best humanitarian aid you can give is some JDAMs."
You don't care about the victims of Saddam, only your bloody war of conquest. War is so much more intelligent than philanthropy. You use victims to make war.

"It'll be either Sudan, Syria or Iran. It's a tough call. Iraq is not quite stable enough yet to be opening a front in Sudan. But I think Sudan should be liberated as a target of opportunity. But the Lebanese elections are a pretty enticing excuse to go into Syria. And Iran's nukes are enticing as well. Honestly, so many targets, not enough bombs!" That's the problem with living in a royal colony like Australia, they'll never give the sheep any bombs. But your peacekeeping credentials are impeccible, like East Timor. That's why Darfur is a perfect match.

"Because they have poor logic skills. But that's OK, we'll be out of their hair before they know it. In the meantime, we're saying "sorry" a lot." I though Australia was out of there? Oh you mean Bush-Cheney.
I'm rearing to go, trust me.
Marvelous! Syria and or Iran...Can you give me a M/D/Y? Why bother, you've already conquered them 'effectively'. You win again! Hurrah!

"That comes down to a judgement call on whether they have nukes or not, and whether we want to risk destruction of Seoul. No I don't hate Koreans. My opinion is that they probably don't have nukes. So keep it conventional. Withdraw all US troops from South Korea. Bring the carriers up. Blow up NK's oil pipeline. See what happens. It is theoretically impossible to run a modern country without oil." The Australian carriers correct? You do have a navy, right and an air force too? No need to have bumbling US forces around. This will be an All-Australia affair. Good hunting, mate!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

PE:"Even more reason to do some good deeds in the world to make amends."

"Like invading other countries?"

No, like liberating other countries so that people get human rights and freedom.

"Well that's what the aborigines say, they must be left-wing also. Therefore your can kill those communist bastards:)!"

They have falled prey to the Marxist concept of perpetual victimhood, which is preventing them from getting ahead in life. You revolutionary socialists are the ones who don't give a shit about Aborigines. Conservatives do.

"He just called back"

Get Kerry on the liberal media and say that he is not happy with Florida and wants xyz done. Stop delaying.

PE:"The majority of them are actually Republicans who want to be there to help the Iraqis to their feet. Don't do these things in the troop's names. Ask them what they want."

"One thing Americans don't need is to take orders from military juntas."

Of course. It should instead come from what the civilians want. And as a civilian, I want the Iraqi people freed. The military are brave people who are willing to implement the civilian decisions. I email one, and to use his own words:

One of the ways that I can positively contribute to what's going on over here is to do my job to the best of my ability and part of that is being dispassionate
about "the big picture".

"You don't care about the victims of Saddam"

Not true. I do care, and what I want to give them is freedom and safety. This requires changes in the institutions to give them rule of law. That is being done now, thanks to the IP/ING/MNF.

"That's the problem with living in a royal colony like Australia, they'll never give the sheep any bombs."

Actually, we do have bombs, but the general principle is correct. We are a small country, and the only way we can effectively operate is as part of a broader coalition. That is the only way we can help ourselves, e.g. in response to the Bali bombing. Of course we would have been there even without the Bali bombing. An attack on one is an attack on all. That is Australian ethos.

"But your peacekeeping credentials are impeccible, like East Timor."

And the liberation of the Solomon Islands too.

"That's why Darfur is a perfect match."

Fixing Darfur requires an institutional change in Sudan. This is possibly not the right time to be doing it. We need Iraq to be calm. Iraq is where the high stakes are. Win in Iraq and the world is won.

"I though Australia was out of there?"

No, only if the arsehole Marxists get in.

"Marvelous! Syria and or Iran...Can you give me a M/D/Y?"

No war plan survives first contact with the enemy. Syria is an independent actor. So is Iran. We will adapt to what they do.

"The Australian carriers correct? You do have a navy, right and an air force too? No need to have bumbling US forces around. This will be an All-Australia affair."

Australia is a small country. We leverage into the power of our tribe. Our tribe is humanists. We can call up people like the UK and France who have carriers. We just need to convince them that it's the right thing to do.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"No, like liberating other countries so that people get human rights and freedom."
Can't this be done without war?


They have falled prey to the Marxist concept of perpetual victimhood, which is preventing them from getting ahead in life. You revolutionary socialists are the ones who don't give a shit about Aborigines. Conservatives do.
Are there such a thing as 'conservative' aborigines? If not the terms must be mutally exclusive.
"Get Kerry on the liberal media and say that he is not happy with Florida and wants xyz done. Stop delaying."
Why didn't you contact Bush( or atleast FOX News) to stop his fascist brother, Bush is the chief law enforcement officer of the US it is his DUTY, not preference to insure fair voting.

"One of the ways that I can positively contribute to what's going on over here is to do my job to the best of my ability and part of that is being dispassionate
about "the big picture"."
I do know how they feel. They don't want to be part of a tragedy, they have to get motivated every day. As their civilian leader, it is my reponsibility to send them on difficult but clearly do-able missions( Iraq looks worse every day). If the concept is flawed, the will be withdrawn for the their own good and for the good of the USA ASAP.
"Not true. I do care, and what I want to give them is freedom and safety. This requires changes in the institutions to give them rule of law. That is being done now, thanks to the IP/ING/MNF."
That's not what Myers just said, he said they won't be ready until next year They failed in Fallujah in April and they are still not ready.

"We are a small country, and the only way we can effectively operate is as part of a broader coalition." NO! What about Israel, a 'real' country not even 1/4 the population of the 'continent' of Australia? Baaahhhh!
"That is the only way we can help ourselves, e.g. in response to the Bali bombing. Of course we would have been there even without the Bali bombing. An attack on one is an attack on all. That is Australian ethos." Then institute a draft and conquer communism on your own. America is tired of carrying your water.

"Fixing Darfur requires an institutional change in Sudan. This is possibly not the right time to be doing it. We need Iraq to be calm. Iraq is where the high stakes are. Win in Iraq and the world is won." I wish the Iraqis well, but the US is an obstacle to reconciliation. We lost their hearts and minds. We will be gone in January.
"No, only if the arsehole Marxists get in." Arse? is that OZ for ass? Why didn't you fight with that Trotskyite Brazillian? Might have been interesting. Stop dreaing there aren't any communists any more.

"No war plan survives first contact with the enemy. Syria is an independent actor. So is Iran. We will adapt to what they do." Iran is in an excellent postion right now and they know it. Bush could have tried to repair relations after Saddam's ouster, instead he puts them in the Axis of Evil with Iraq, amazing stupidity!

"We leverage into the power of our tribe. Our tribe is humanists. We can call up people like the UK and France who have carriers. We just need to convince them that it's the right thing to do."
Your Howard is holding early elections because he thinks Bush is going down in November. I wonder if sheep of the Antipodes will comprehend that.

Interesting your deleting responses...is the defender of the freeworld (MLE not Bush) losing his nerve?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

PE:"No, like liberating other countries so that people get human rights and freedom."

"Can't this be done without war?"

Yes, that is a good point! In China that is exactly what is being done. China is on a path of gradual improvement. It will hopefully morph into Taiwan. But some countries are stuck in an unmovable dictatorship, like Saddam was. This needs to be dislodged by force so that the Iraqi people can be put on a path to help themselves. Sanctions were the only other external force available to the international community, and they didn't seem to be doing the trick. In Iran, the Europeans tried to be friendly to get them to change, but the Guardian Council wouldn't budge. Time to use force again.

"Are there such a thing as 'conservative' aborigines?"

Yes, the liberal media never gives them any air time though, to make it look like they don't exist. The same as blacks in America like Dr Rice. These conservative blacks exist, but whenever they come up, instead of celebrating how open the Republican Party is, how non-racist it is, they are shouted down as "sellouts", when they are nothing more than American patriots. I hope Dr Rice becomes the next US President.

"Why didn't you contact Bush( or atleast FOX News)"

I told you. The sequence starts with Kerry. He needs to allege fraud in advance, in order to make it an issue that needs to be addressed.

"As their civilian leader, it is my reponsibility to send them on difficult but clearly do-able missions( Iraq looks worse every day)."

Now you're getting somewhere. This is correct. The buck stops with you. Iraq is clearly doable. All we're doing is changing one Iraqi leader (Saddam) to another Iraqi leader (Allawi). It cannot fail to work. It is not looking worse every day. More and more IP and ING are coming on line every day and enforcing the rule of law. It is an unstoppable train.

"If the concept is flawed, the will be withdrawn for the their own good and for the good of the USA ASAP."

You want to let the humanists in Iraq be left to fend for themselves. Our allies undefended. You are sick. You don't care how many innocent Iraqis die. You have a mental problem as described here:

http://www.marxist.org.uk/htm_docs/comm12.htm

PE:"Not true. I do care, and what I want to give them is freedom and safety. This requires changes in the institutions to give them rule of law. That is being done now, thanks to the IP/ING/MNF."

"That's not what Myers just said, he said they won't be ready until next year"

So? It takes time to construct new forces. It is being done. Everything is on track.

"They failed in Fallujah in April and they are still not ready."

They didn't fail. They were withdrawn because the Iraqi Governing Council was telling lies about US atrocities, and the US decided to let the Iraqis have it their way so that they could take personal responsibility for the consequences.

PE:"We are a small country, and the only way we can effectively operate is as part of a broader coalition."

"NO! What about Israel, a 'real' country not even 1/4 the population of the 'continent' of Australia?"

Give us a break! We have to project the force to the other side of the world. The Israelis are already there!

PE:"That is the only way we can help ourselves, e.g. in response to the Bali bombing. Of course we would have been there even without the Bali bombing. An attack on one is an attack on all. That is Australian ethos."

"Then institute a draft and conquer communism on your own."

We will do so if necessary. At the moment there is plenty of volunteers.

"America is tired of carrying your water."

Different people contributed different amounts throughout history. UK took the burden at the beginning of WWI and WWII. US has done the lion's share of the work since then. Thanks America! I hope the UN will take over the burden soon. Or NATO.

"I wish the Iraqis well, but the US is an obstacle to reconciliation. We lost their hearts and minds. We will be gone in January."

No, we will be gone when the IP and ING can do the job with air support from Turkey.

"Iran is in an excellent postion right now and they know it."

No it isn't.

"Your Howard is holding early elections because he thinks Bush is going down in November."

No, he is again leveraging into the power of the US, making use of the Republicans raising the issues, and hoping that the Australians will think that Latham is as morally bankrupt as Kerry. He isn't quite, but it's being tried anyway. Good tactic!

"Interesting your deleting responses...is the defender of the freeworld (MLE not Bush) losing his nerve?"

No, there was a technical glitch.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"Yes, that is a good point! In China that is exactly what is being done. China is on a path of gradual improvement. It will hopefully morph into Taiwan. But some countries are stuck in an unmovable dictatorship, like Saddam was. This needs to be dislodged by force so that the Iraqi people can be put on a path to help themselves. Sanctions were the only other external force available to the international community, and they didn't seem to be doing the trick. In Iran, the Europeans tried to be friendly to get them to change, but the Guardian Council wouldn't budge. Time to use force again."
If anything, this argues that it is pointless to use force at all, eventually by your theory they will become receptive on their own. Kind of blows up your necessity-of-war argument.

"Are there such a thing as 'conservative' aborigines?"

"I hope Dr Rice becomes the next US President."
Ahead of Wolfowitz? and Bush?? There are several 'professional Negroes' who work for right wing think tanks, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connelly, Alan Keyes and Condensed Rice. They are well paid for their appearances.

"I told you. The sequence starts with Kerry. He needs to allege fraud in advance, in order to make it an issue that needs to be addressed." No crime without an allegation? You have no sense of justice.

"Iraq is clearly doable." The US is not winning even hearts and minds and territory is being lost.
Add Ramadi, pop.100000 to Samara and Fallujah. Bagadad had half gone over to Sadr.Everyone in Iraqi is wondering when the US will leave. Bush has utterly blown it. If there were a ceasefire today as in 1972, you want to bet the central government will collapse just like SV. So America fails again right?..all Uncle Sam's fault. You anti-American scumbags kill me.
"All we're doing is changing one Iraqi leader (Saddam) to another Iraqi leader (Allawi). It cannot fail to work. It is not looking worse every day. More and more IP and ING are coming on line every day and enforcing the rule of law. It is an unstoppable train." I forget you antipodeans get everything upside down.

"You want to let the humanists in Iraq be left to fend for themselves. Our allies undefended. You are sick. You don't care how many innocent Iraqis die. You have a mental problem as described here."
Cut and paste, I never read links. You're right, I am not going to sacrifice myself for Iraq or Australia( maybe you will). God helps those who help themselves.

"So? It takes time to construct new forces. It is being done. Everything is on track." That's not what General Myers says.

"They didn't fail. They were withdrawn because the Iraqi Governing Council was telling lies about US atrocities, and the US decided to let the Iraqis have it their way so that they could take personal responsibility for the consequences." The Iraqi troops ran away(except the peshmerga). The following was an article from 8-16-2004:'Only 65 of nearly 200 Iraqi soldiers showed for work at one National Guard company headquarters on Friday, according to the U.S. Marine in charge of their training...
Toolan gave the new commanders a deadline of Aug. 21 to muster their remaining ING soldiers at bases outside the city[Fallujah], and to re-form their battalions.' Take off your rose colored glasses, MLE.
"Give us a break!" You're soft.
We have to project the force to the other side of the world. The Israelis are already there! Of course we would have been there even without the Bali bombing. An attack on one is an attack on all. That is Australian ethos."
And Indonesia is 100 miles(?) away. JI is bombing again--why would anyone target the helpess Embassy of OZ? Poor helpless kangeroos. I hear Vanuatu is kicking your blokes out.
"We will do so if necessary. At the moment there is plenty of volunteers." Who??

"Different people contributed different amounts throughout history. UK took the burden at the beginning of WWI and WWII. US has done the lion's share of the work since then. Thanks America! I hope the UN will take over the burden soon. Or NATO." There is no relief, no silver lining. Thanks Bushy!

"No, we will be gone when the IP and ING can do the job with air support from Turkey." Turkey is a ISlamofasicst backstabber and won't help the secular government of Iraq.

No it isn't.
"They are masters of patient strategic thinking, to put Ho Chi Mihn to shame.

"No, he is again leveraging into the power of the US, making use of the Republicans raising the issues, and hoping that the Australians will think that Latham is as morally bankrupt as Kerry. He isn't quite, but it's being tried anyway. Good tactic!" Howard is now accused of lying( or exaggerating?) about Iraqi 'boat people'. Of course, lying is no sin if you're an extreme ideologue.

"No, there was a technical glitch." Really? Sounds quite improbable. All you do for post a comment is type something in and send-the only 'technical glitch would be if you emailed some preposterous embassasing bullshit that turned out to be false.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm an anti-dogma, anti-non-humanist and anti-subjugator in that order. Are you? Or are you someone who is bigotted against those in power and believe that some glorious Utopia would arise if only the masses would rise up (except you're not exactly sure what that Utopia will be, and it's certainly untested, or rather, all tests to date have proven failures)?

"If anything, this argues that it is pointless to use force at all, eventually by your theory they will become receptive on their own."

It is necessary to be pro-active. If you want peace, prepare for war.

PE:"I hope Dr Rice becomes the next US President."

"Ahead of Wolfowitz? and Bush??"

Yes. Although I am a humanist, thus don't favour racial discrimination, it is strategic for a black woman to be in power to break the back of the dogma that insists that the Republicans hate blacks.

"There are several 'professional Negroes' who work for right wing think tanks, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connelly, Alan Keyes and Condensed Rice. They are well paid for their appearances."

Are you sure they didn't rise up through the ranks on their own merits? Regardless, if there was some "affirmative action" to get them there, why is that bad? Are they competent at doing the job?

"No crime without an allegation? You have no sense of justice."

No investigation warranted without an allegation from the person who is allegedly aggrieved.

"You're right, I am not going to sacrifice myself for Iraq or Australia( maybe you will). God helps those who help themselves."

First of all, no-one is asking you to sacrifice your life. They are just asking you to allow those volunteers (both Iraqi and MNF) to complete their job.

"The Iraqi troops ran away(except the peshmerga)."

A lot has changed since then.

"in charge of their training"

This is life. Trainees chicken out. Some get through. You need to look at the end result, ie how many men under arms.

"I hear Vanuatu is kicking your blokes out."

We are not subjugators. We don't care what they do so long as they don't abuse human rights.

"There is no relief, no silver lining. Thanks Bushy!"

There is relief. The ING and IP will take over, and the oil money will pay their salaries. It's straightforward.

"Turkey is a Islamofascist backstabber and won't help the secular government of Iraq."

It will provide an air base. The US will patrol the skies. This is helpful to ensure the Iraqis know that they are not being subjugated.

"Howard is now accused of lying( or exaggerating?) about Iraqi 'boat people'. Of course, lying is no sin if you're an extreme ideologue."

That would be Kerry with his "Christmas in Cambodia" to attempt to alter US foreign policy. It is our side that doesn't need to lie.

"Really? Sounds quite improbable. All you do for post a comment is type something in and send"

And it didn't appear. So I tried again and again and again at different times. Then they all came through, so I went back and fixed the damage. :-)

You're convinced there's a big conspiracy, with people in power controlling everything, aren't you? Non-subjugators like myself naturally ally with other non-subjugators. :-) Who would have thought that there were Iraqis who wanted to be free? :-) Only racists, that's who!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

MLE,
"I'm an anti-dogma, anti-non-humanist and anti-subjugator in that order. Are you?"
I don't wear 'designer-labels'. You can call yourself swiss cheese for all I care. You appear to be a genuine fanatic.
"Or are you someone who is bigotted against those in power and believe that some glorious Utopia would arise if only the masses would rise up (except you're not exactly sure what that Utopia will be, and it's certainly untested, or rather, all tests to date have proven failures)?" I believe people in power have an absolute responsibility to work in the public interest(i.e. working people, the environment, peace in general) not their own narrow interest( getting reelected). OTH, you pardon them, if they serve your narrow hobby-world conquest.

"It is necessary to be pro-active. If you want peace, prepare for war." 'PREPARE FOR WAR' IS NOT PRE-EMPTIVE WAR. Now write that down one hundred times till you get it right.

"Are you sure they didn't rise up through the ranks on their own merits? Regardless, if there was some "affirmative action" to get them there, why is that bad? Are they competent at doing the job?" Affirmative action is a mixed bag as we get a VERY small group of blacks who trade on the color of their skin. I am not refering to conservative Powell, who went up thru the ranks. Normal blacks openly laugh at these 'Uncle Toms'.

"No investigation warranted without an allegation from the person who is allegedly aggrieved." Kerry is not disenfranchaised, democrats in Florida are and they are protesting. Do you think Kerry is the King of the democrats or something??

"First of all, no-one is asking you to sacrifice your life. They are just asking you to allow those volunteers (both Iraqi and MNF) to complete their job.


"A lot has changed since then."
You didn't read what I sent you. Only 65 out of 200 showed up for duty in Fallujah on 8-16-04, last month.
"This is life. Trainees chicken out. Some get through. You need to look at the end result, ie how many men under arms." What is the drop out rate for volunteers in the Australian army? Not 66% I'll bet.

"We are not subjugators. We don't care what they do so long as they don't abuse human rights."
You were going to fix things and you are getting booted out before anything got fixed. Doesn't this rebut your doctrine of intervention?

"There is relief. The ING and IP will take over, and the oil money will pay their salaries. It's straightforward."
You aren't listening again. Idiot!

"It will provide an air base. The US will patrol the skies. This is helpful to ensure the Iraqis know that they are not being subjugated." By not doing anything they are helping? I doubt that they can be relied upon to even let the US use the bases.
"That would be Kerry with his "Christmas in Cambodia" to attempt to alter US foreign policy. It is our side that doesn't need to lie." Then why has Howard been caught in a lie? He lies for fun? The article said that lie helped his last election.

"And it didn't appear. So I tried again and again and again at different times. Then they all came through, so I went back and fixed the damage. :-)"
Then where was the further post? Or did you have delete the same post 5 times??

"You're convinced there's a big conspiracy, with people in power controlling everything, aren't you?" Yeap, people in power are self serving assholes who have to be watched. You like to watch people who are not in power, but why is that?
"Non-subjugators like myself naturally ally with other non-subjugators. :-)"
Are you being funny? You want to attack other countries!
"Who would have thought that there were Iraqis who wanted to be free? :-) Only racists, that's who!" Who would have thought that millions of Iraqis would want the US the hell out of there..only racists, that's who.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

"Yeap, people in power are self serving assholes who have to be watched"

Sorry for the hiatus. This is a dogma that assumes that people in power are always self-serving arseholes. They're not always. You can watch them do good if you just open your eyes.
 
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on Blogwise