What the people of Anbar are saying

[sirs]

<<I can't imagine how thin the air is in your reality>>

Just take a look at the air in YOUR reality.  The most powerful nation on earth that can have anything it wants by snapping its fingers (so you say) is stymied after four years of fighting a nation of only 23 million.

Because what YOU say they want is the oil, and what reality says, and most of the rationally minded people say, is they want is a democratically free Iraq.  The former would be a piece of cake, surround each oil well with a couple of Marine platoons, Patriot batteries, and several Abrams Tanks, and claim it's payment for taking out their dictator.   The latter requires diplomatic action, citizens not scared to come out for fear of their families being killed for daring to "collaborate", a functional government and security force.  In other words, the latter takes a hell of alot more time, resources & logistics.  The latter requires much more care in trying to minimize both civilian casualties and damage to the infrastructure. 

In otherwords, the latter is reality, while the formoer is pure AMBE

[Michael Tee]

Spoken like a man with a true, full and complete ignorance of all history.  To Americans like you, world history began sometime last week, or to the real scholars among you, at the time of the first George W. Bush inauguration.

Colonialism is an old old story.  The U.S. isn't the first country to make a grab at somebody else's resources, and it won't be the last.  From the time of the Spanish Empire in Latin America to the time of the last British domination of Iraq, the pattern is always the same.  The WHOLE COUNTRY is claimed for the exploiting power.  They don't just throw up a perimeter around the mines or the oil wells or whatever they came to exploit and rob the hell out of them without pretending to govern the rest of the country.  And the reason they don't do this is they all, from Ferdinand and Isabella to Queen Victoria to George W. Bush, don't want to look like the bandits and crooks and robbers that they are.   Even the fucking Japs and Germans set up governments in each country they occupied and tried to pretend they were being responsibly governed for their own good.

Your proposal is so idiotic that it's barely worth answering, except for the fact that it pains me that such a level of ignorance can even exist.  Even in America.  You really believe that Bush and his cohorts would even for one second consider sending in a force sufficient only to secure the oil wells and then start pumping out every drop they could sell?  After all the effort they have put into manufacturing lies and bullshit to create the illusion of benevolence that cloaks their every deed, just so as to keep the American sheeple as much as possible on their side?  There is no imperial power on earth that has ever shown that kind of open contempt for public opinion.  That is probably the craziest fucking thing I have ever heard you say, and believe me you have said plenty of crazy shit.

[sirs]

Actually, spoken as someone who can grasp current reality.  And the reason you have to claim your position as iditoc is because it is.  If this was simply about the oil wells & their control, and as evil as you keep claiming Bush is, with complete disregard of both Iraqi people and even his own troops, who everyone says he doesn't care a wit for either, of course he could annex the oil fields, surround them with a few thousand troops, stamp a big American flag on them, and say "Ours".

IF he were this diabolically evil entity you keep claiming he is, and IF the military is this big massive low hanging mass of murdering rapists

Reality however demonstrates that not to be, and your continued tact of lack of proof is proof posistive, simply demonstrates the levels of desperation you have to sink to, in order to adhere to your template

[Michael Tee]

Essentially your argument depends on Bush doing something that even the Nazis at their most victorious didn't do.  Does Bush look to you like a guy who doesn't give a shit what people think about him?  Then why all these speeches trying to justify what he's doing?

Let me straighten you out on what I actually say about Bush.  I never claimed he was more evil than the Nazis, only that he was on a rough par with them.  With a smaller number of victims because he's more of a punk than Hitler was.

So why would my theory call for Bush to go beyond what the Nazis themselves did?

[_JS]

Because what YOU say they want is the oil, and what reality says, and most of the rationally minded people say, is they want is a democratically free Iraq.

I have a question about this.

If we want a democracy in Iraq, why aren't we doing something about the Saudi's funding of the Sunni insurgents, who are still causing the most violence to the people of Iraq and to our own soldiers in that country? Reports of Saudi funding for Sunni insurgents have been made since 2006 and our focus has still been aimed primarily at Shi'a insurgents and debatable ties to Iranian arms shipments.

If we are serious about democracy in Iraq, not oil and not any other agenda, then why are we so keen on allowing the Saudis and Sunni insurgents to do as they please?

[Michael Tee]

JS - to ask the question is to answer it.  NOBODY gives a shit about democracy in Iraq.  Why would the U.S. be concerned about democracy in Iraq if they aren't concerned about it anywhere else in the Middle East?

[_JS]

JS - to ask the question is to answer it.  NOBODY gives a shit about democracy in Iraq.  Why would the U.S. be concerned about democracy in Iraq if they aren't concerned about it anywhere else in the Middle East?

I was hoping someone who believes in democracy in Iraq could provide an answer.

This turning a blind eye to the Saudis and Sunnis in general, seems to undermine the entire argument for democracy in Iraq.

[sirs]

JS - to ask the question is to answer it.  NOBODY gives a shit about democracy in Iraq.  Why would the U.S. be concerned about democracy in Iraq if they aren't concerned about it anywhere else in the Middle East?

I was hoping someone who believes in democracy in Iraq could provide an answer.  This turning a blind eye to the Saudis and Sunnis in general, seems to undermine the entire argument for democracy in Iraq.

Apparently Js is now advocating military intervention all across the Middle East          Go figure

Essentially your argument depends on Bush doing something that even the Nazis at their most victorious didn't do.

You mean to tell me, Germany didn't ring up their own command & control, if not flag as well, when they took France??  Germany wasn't running & ruling Austria as if it was theirs  More of that revisionist history I see being employed.       And one more time, this is about supposedly taking over oil wells, not an entire country, something we could do within a 24hr period, IF that were our chief goal

Does Bush look to you like a guy who doesn't give a shit what people think about him? 

What??  Yo Tee, it's YOU claiming he doesn't give a sheet about anyone or anything.  YOU are the one claiming how he has no problem sending anyone to their death, and killing anyone in the process, so long as it accomplishes his nefarious goals.  As I said, reality trumps your prescious asanine irrational view of what Bush and our military are supposed to be.

So why would my theory call for Bush to go beyond what the Nazis themselves did?

Because your theory is nothing more than hateful speculation, devoid of ANY substance.  The Nazis went WAY beyond simple control of some oil wells.  They systematically murdered millions in camps, while ruling over a vast area of Europe, at the height of their military control.  And Bush is supposedly a Hitler want-to-be, evil as evil can be, in charge of the greatest military currently on the globe.  Best gets some oxygen, Tee.  I'd recommend at least 3liters/minute, perhaps even 4 to start off with

[_JS]

Apparently Js is now advocating military intervention all across the Middle East          Go figure

Nice. Try and get into a sincere discussion and you get a smart ass comment.

[BT]

JS

Perhaps diplomatic pressure is being applied to the Saudi's. and i'm aware of Saudi statements that they would aid the sunni's if Iran had undo influence on IOraq. I'm not aware that they are actively funding sunni insurgents now.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

[sirs]

Apparently Js is now advocating military intervention all across the Middle East          Go figure

Nice. Try and get into a sincere discussion and you get a smart ass comment.

Yo Js, smart ass is this complaining how it must not be democracy that went in Iraq, since we're not going after any other Suuni or Saudi led Government.  This is that shell game the left plays that really is beneath folks like yourself, but unfortunately I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  You see that tactic every frellin time you read a comment about "There's the 143rd reason that the Administration said we went into Iraq for).  The reason we don't go after any of these other Governments is THAT'S NOT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ.  

We went in because of the WMD threat and terrorist connections following 911.  Everything that has happened since is as a result of that reason we went into Iraq. Your "complaint" would imply we went into Iraq solely to bring democracy to the Iraqis.  Your "complaint" then obligates a massive military intervention to help bring about Democracy to all the other locales you mention.  so, the smart-as response is the shell game of picking which reason the left thinks we went into Iraq, in any given thread, when the reason, we went in HAVE NEVER CHANGED

[Michael Tee]

<<You mean to tell me, Germany didn't ring up their own command & control, if not flag as well, when they took France?? >>

NO, moron, they didn't.  They never "took" France either, they signed an armistice with France, which means simply a cease-fire.  France got to keep her navy and her overseas empire.  Germany occupied part of France and left part unoccupied.  The Vichy government had legal authority over French citizens in both parts.  Then after the Allies (British and American) landed without much opposition in France's North African colonies, Germany occupied the rest of France militarily but the French government in Vichy still passed laws for all of France.  French industry filled German military orders voluntarily.  They were guarded by French police.  Even the S.T.O. (the law which conscripted French youth for factory work in Germany) was a law passed by the Vichy government.  The only Nazi flags you'd ever see in France were on the German Embassy and Consulates and over German military bases.

<<<<  Germany wasn't running & ruling Austria as if it was theirs  >>

Austria WAS theirs.  They incorporated it into the German Reich.  It was (in their eyes) racially and linguistically German and had to be naturally a part of the Reich.  Austria was an exception.  There were some native Austrian fascists who needed to be liquidated because they believed in an Austrian fascist national destiny independent of Germany but apart from that the Germans ruled Austria like they ruled their own country.  They didn't treat them as a conquered people.  Hitler himself was an Austrian.  So were a lot of the top Nazis.  The rest of the Austrians LOVED Hitler.  They had no problem at all with joining Nazi Germany.  There was never an Austrian Resistance.  It was only after the Nazis lost the war that the Austrians came up with their sob story, Boo hoo we were occupied and enslaved by mean old Nazi Germany.  It's ludicrous to consider them an occupied country.  Many of them were bigger Nazis than the Nazis.

They set up puppet governments wherever they could.  Slovakia, Denmark, Norway (where do you think the word "quisling" comes from?) etc.  Or relied on native fascist parties to form collaborationist governments, as in Romania, Hungary, Croatia.  Some countries like Poland which was the worst example they ruled by force through a German General Government, but even that assumed responsibility for the whole country, which it attempted to police and rule.  NEVER did they just surround the means of production and take no responsibility for anything else.

<<The More of that revisionist history I see being employed.    Roll Eyes   >>

As always, you're talking out of your ass.  You don't even know history, WTF would you know about "revisionist" history?

<<And one more time, this is about supposedly taking over oil wells, not an entire country, something we could do within a 24hr period, IF that were our chief goal>>

And talking out of your ass.  I've already answered that totally absurd and incredibly ignorant assertion, that would deprive them of any shred of legality and brand them as bandits and criminals in the eyes of the world and even their own people.  Even YOU would have to admit that they were a gang of amoral criminals if they did what you say they could do.  They need some support for their criminal ventures, that it comes from the dumbest of the dumb is not good, but it's better than no support at all.


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 10:58:01 AM
<<Does Bush look to you like a guy who doesn't give a shit what people think about him?

<<What??  Yo Tee, it's YOU claiming he doesn't give a sheet about anyone or anything.  YOU are the one claiming how he has no <<problem sending anyone to their death, and killing anyone in the process, so long as it accomplishes his nefarious goals.  As I said, reality trumps your prescious asanine irrational view of what Bush and our military are supposed to be.>>

Really?  And just where did I claim that Bush never tried to cover his tracks and find phony excuses to fool as many morons as he could fool?


<<Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 10:58:01 AM
<<So why would my theory call for Bush to go beyond what the Nazis themselves did?

<<Because your theory is nothing more than hateful speculation, devoid of ANY substance.  >>

Well, OK, but that STILL doesn't answer my question.  Why would a theory based on nothing more than hateful speculation and devoid of any substance require that Bush should have to act worse than the Nazis in pubic view?

<<The Nazis went WAY beyond simple control of some oil wells.  They systematically murdered millions in camps, while ruling over a vast area of Europe, at the height of their military control. >>

Sure they did.  But they always kept up the pretence that they were LIBERATING Europe (from Bolshevism and Jews) and were creating a new Europe for the future, free of both Jews and Bolshevists.

<< And Bush is supposedly a Hitler want-to-be, evil as evil can be, in charge of the greatest military currently on the globe.  >>

Yeah but still concerned, as the Nazis were, to look good while he's doing evil.

<<Best gets some oxygen, Tee.  I'd recommend at least 3liters/minute, perhaps even 4 to start off with>>

Best grow a fucking brain, sirs, or at least try to learn something about Nazis and European history before making such an ass of yourself again.

[_JS]

JS

Perhaps diplomatic pressure is being applied to the Saudi's. and i'm aware of Saudi statements that they would aid the sunni's if Iran had undo influence on IOraq. I'm not aware that they are actively funding sunni insurgents now.

Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Christian Science Monitor

CBS

Int'l forecaster

BBC

[_JS]

Yo Js, smart ass is this complaining how it must not be democracy  ofwe want in Iraq, since we're not going after any other Suuni or Saudi led Government.  This is that shell game the left plays that really is beneath folks like yourself, but unfortunately I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  You see that tactic every frellin time you read a comment about "There's the 143rd reason that the Administration said we went into Iraq for).  The reason we don't go after any of these other Governments is THAT'S NOT WHY WE WENT INTO IRAQ.  

We went in because of the WMD threat and terrorist connections following 911.  Everything that has happened since is as a result of that reason we went into Iraq. Your "complaint" would imply we went into Iraq solely to bring democracy to the Iraqis.  Your "complaint" then obligates a massive military intervention to help bring about Democracy to all the other locales you mention.  so, the smart-as response is the shell game of picking which reason the left thinks we went into Iraq, in any given thread, when the reason, we went in HAVE NEVER CHANGED

Sirs, you seem to misinterpret things here very badly. Whatever reasons we went into Iraq are in the past. I don't give a damn about those in this context. Nor do I give a damn about your incessant whining about "the left" and whatever bizarre political games you think need to be played. I honestly, do not care.

I am talking about IRAQ. One country. I never said that we needed to invade Saudi Arabia, nor did I suggest that we had to make every other country around Iraq a democracy. So you can take your strawmen arguments and put them away. I don't care about them, because you made them, not me.

Now, what I do care about is Iraq and President Bush, nominee Fred Thompson, and many others have explained that we are there to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Don't ask me where they got that idea Sirs. I'm not the one who invented it. But, there it is.

So, my question is this, are we truly supporting a democratic Iraq when we are seemingly not bothering to stop the flow of weapons and funding to the Sunni Insurgents? Yet, we seem very gung-ho to go after the Shi'a insurgents and Iran, who we seem to have singled out as their supplier.

Now, if you have nothing but strawmen and smart ass remarks as a reply, then kindly step aside and let the adults talk. If you have something to add, please be a part of the conversation. It isn't that difficult of a concept.

[Amianthus]

The rest of the Austrians LOVED Hitler.  They had no problem at all with joining Nazi Germany.  There was never an Austrian Resistance.  It was only after the Nazis lost the war that the Austrians came up with their sob story, Boo hoo we were occupied and enslaved by mean old Nazi Germany.

Bullshit.