Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

La tour d'Eiffel est sur le feu!!!!

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » La tour d'Eiffel est sur le feu!!!! « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through August 8, 2003Lordhobgoblin (Lordh25 8-8-03  11:27 am
Archive through August 4, 2003Strom Thurmond (Moga25 8-4-03  12:45 pm
Archive through July 29, 2003Lordhobgoblin (Lordh25 7-29-03  2:23 am
Archive through July 25, 2003Mssr. Kallisti (Hea25 7-25-03  6:39 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 841
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 3:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

MD,

"...the Soviet Union funded and supported the IRA and with their demise the IRA simply ran out of steam. The Brits wisely gave the last of the terrorists a way out of a loosing situation to bring an early end to the fighting."

Complete and utter horseshit.

The prime funding for the IRA came from the Irish-American community (and politicians) in the USA. I suppose you also believe that Noraid is funded by Communists?

The IRA were not being defeated by the British. They were not running out of steam.

If the IRA had been losing and running out of steam then why would the British government sit down and negotiate with their representatives? Why did the British give concessions to a force that was weak and defeated? Who gave up the most in the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. The IRA laid down their arms (which you argue earlier for terrorists is giving up nothing valid), the British have given the representatives of the IRA senior ministerial positions in the government of Northern Ireland, they've dissolved the RUC, they've released all terrorist prisoners convicted of crimes, they've ultimately paved the way for a United Ireland. What have they British gained from all this? A silencing of terrorist guns (which you would argue is not a concession worth bargaining for). To maintain that the IRA have been defeated is wishful thinking.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1173
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 5:40 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yeah, yeah, you know what I was reading when I was 16... At least I don't dress up like a Klingon...
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Duc
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 139
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 6:51 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"To be incapable of taking one's enemies, one's accidents, even one's misdeeds seriously for very long--that is the sign of the strong...

How much reverence a noble man has for his enemies!--and such reverence is the bridge to love.--For he desires his enemy for himself, as his mark of distinction; he can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honour!

In contrast to this, picture 'the enemy' as the man of resentment conceives him--and here precisely is his deed, his creation: he has conceived 'the evil enemy,' 'the Evil One,' and this fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a 'good one'--himself!"

--Nietzsche
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1169
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 9:47 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Where the hell did that come from? Who used a plane load of bombs against civilian targets?




We have, not so much recently, but certainly in Vietnam and WWII. Israel has within the past couple of months (OK, usually tank shells and missiles for heliocopters, but still...). My point is that nobody is 100% innocent. We've all got blood on our hands.


quote:

Did we not kiss the proper amount of ass in the middle east?




We kissed the WRONG asses, I'd say. We've sided with despots and dictators when it was to our political or economic advantage to do so. We've kissed Israel's ass for 50 years as it has sunk deeper and deeper into a policy of oppression and apartheid.


quote:

It's like saying the Jews had some responsibility for the holocaust because they didn't leave Germany in time.




No, it's not, and you're flirting with Godwin's law there. The Jews were not in the position of power and influence that we are in the Middle East. The Jews didn't spend millions supporting a government that disenfranchised and murdered Germans. The Jews didn't support violent and oppressive governments because they wanted to make a buck.

We have done things that were WRONG in the Middle East. That doens't make wrongs done against us right, but it certainly makes them LIKELY.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1168
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 9:36 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

So you would negotiate with terrorists. People who's actions you freely admit were unjustifiable.




I'm not talking about negotiating. I'm talking about figuring out if we really need to be doing the things that we are doing to provoke this hatred. Your position seems to be that, since these attacks were unjustifiable, then we should not have to take responsibility for our own actions. Unilateral support of Israel was wrong on 9/10/01, and the fact that we were attacked doesn't change that. Supporting despotic regimes because it's good for the oil business would have been wrong even if we'd never been attacked.

To throw your own metaphor back at you, once the guy killed your kid because you blocked in his car, does that mean it's now OK to park anywhere you want? Does that make the fact that you blocked in his car OK?

I'm not saying we should let the present terrorists get off scott-free. I'm saying that we should do our damnedest to avoid making NEW terrorists.


quote:

Maybe you have a point and raw force isn't very effective, but as I see it, it's the only option.



Then you would doom us to the same cycle of violence that has plagued many other nations.

I've mentioned this before, but working as a bouncer, I've learned that sometimes the best way to stop a fight is not to hit back. Especially when you are bigger and stronger. Even if you would be 100% justified in taking the guy down, it isn't always the best choice. Sometimes you have to take it on the chin, knowing that you are strong enough to survive without fighting back.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 346
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 5:35 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"But using plane-loads of bombs against civilian targets is more justified?"

Where the hell did that come from? Who used a plane load of bombs against civilian targets? Are you trying to say we carpet bombed Baghdad?

"The Middle East is the biker bar of the world. It is a dangerous place full of people on the edge. While nothing justifies mass-murder, we have failed to display the caution that such a delicate situation warrents."

What sort of caution were we supposed to display? Did we not kiss the proper amount of ass in the middle east? Should we have sent Monica down to suck Bin-Laden's dick? You say the attacks against America were unjustifiable, yet we were somehow responsible. I say bullshit.
It's like saying the Jews had some responsibility for the holocaust because they didn't leave Germany in time.
They didn't show the proper amount of caution. Fuck That!
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 345
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

BJ,

So you would negotiate with terrorists. People who's actions you freely admit were unjustifiable.

What will you do when the terrorists don't live up to their end of the negotiation? Do you go back to the table with them?
Are they free to commit further atrocities whenever they are displeased with something we do, or if they want a better deal?

Maybe you have a point and raw force isn't very effective, but as I see it, it's the only option.

I do have to laugh at one statement:
"But if you want to find the main source of their funding, go down to your local "Irish" bar"
You obviously haven't been to San Antonio lately. Going to an Irish bar here to learn anything about Irish Americans would be like going to the Olive Garden to learn about Italian Americans. :-)

As I said before I don't know much about the IRA. My comments were based on the observation that a lot of shit ended after the fall of the Soviet Union. The IRA was one of those things. You say they aren't related, I believe you.

Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1164
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 4:39 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

There simply can be no justification for using a plane load of civilians as a weapon against other civilians and military targets.



But using plane-loads of bombs against civilian targets is more justified?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1163
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 4:38 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

The problem is that now you put yourself in the position of justifying then attacks on America.




You are mistaking understanding with justification. You are mistaking responsibility with blame. If I leave my keys in my car, I am not to blame if somebody steals it, but I still bear some responsibility for it. If I go into a biker bar and drunkenly hit on somebody's girlfirend, I am not to blame if I get taken outside and beaten half to death, but I bear some responsibility for what happend.

The Middle East is the biker bar of the world. It is a dangerous place full of people on the edge. While nothing justifies mass-murder, we have failed to display the caution that such a delicate situation warrents.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1162
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 4:32 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Let's say you have a neighbor and one day you park your car and block his driveway. He can't get to work and he looses his job. In anger he comes over to your house and kills one of your children. Now is the act of parking your car relevant to the situation?




Not really applicable to the realities of the situation. It would be more apt to say you lent your car to a friend who we knew drove drunk, and he ran over the neighbor's kid. After that happened, you continued to let the friend borrow the car. After the friend narrowly missed the neighbor's other kid, and runs over his dog, the neighbor comes over and kills your kid. Still not justifiable, but you are not without some blame.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1161
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 4:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

It's always been my belief (though possibly mistaken) that the Soviet Union funded and supported the IRA and with their demise the IRA simply ran out of steam.




What is it with you and the Communists, man?

Republican groups tried to get support from the Soviets, post-WWI, but they failed. They also tried to get support from Nazi Germany. They really weren't picky about whose money they used.

The modern IRA was no more discrminating, colluding with the Lybians and FARC, not to mention various drug cartels. But if you want to find the main source of their funding, go down to your local "Irish" bar and find the guys who's ancestors haven't been in Ireland for 150 years, but who know all the words to "Come Out Ye Black and Tans". It's easy to support a "revolution" if you don't have to live with the results.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1160
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 4:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

The only way to deal with terrorists is to destroy them. The more fierce quick and effective you are, the less likely anyone else will attack you.




Oh, bullshit. Not only hasn't this worked for the British or the Israelis, it hasn't worked for the Colombians, the Filipinos, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Egyptians, and numerous other authoritarian governments who have tried to crush terrorism without the restraint and concern for human rights the US would have to show. Are you telling me that in 100 years of violent repression of the Moro insurrections, that the Filipino government just hasn't been trying hard enough? Could it be maybe that (gasp) violent repression ENCOURAGES terrorism? Hm?
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1159
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 3:58 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

At least then anger can be directed against our military presence there, rather than our civilian population at home.




Why do you think they blew up the army barracks in Riyadh? The thing that you are missing is that one of the very REASONS that Usama and co. are so pissed at us is that we have been keeping our troops stationed in what they consider a sacred country (Sa`udi Arabia). Increasing our military presence will only piss them off more. If there is one thing to be learned from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it is that the threat of military force, even OVERWHELMING military force, does nothing to discourage terrorists.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 344
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Carl
"I think it's more a case of "you park your car in front of your neighbor's driveway. His kid has a sudden illness and dies because your neighbor couldn't get him to a hospital in time."

The problem is that now you put yourself in the position of justifying then attacks on America. It's an impossible position to take. There simply can be no justification for using a plane load of civilians as a weapon against other civilians and military targets.
No crime committed by the USA or anyone else justifies this act.

I agree that the Palestinians are in a terrible situation. If I were a Palestinian, I would lash out against Israel too.

However that is a separate issue from the act of terror against the USA.
We can't deal with the terrorists by addressing the problem of Israel and the Palestinians.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 343
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 2:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

HG,

"Of course you can. Explain what has happened in Northern Ireland then?"

I've carefully avoided discussing Ireland since I know almost nothing about it. As long as Guinness continues to flow from Ireland I'm happy. It's always been my belief (though possibly mistaken) that the Soviet Union funded and supported the IRA and with their demise the IRA simply ran out of steam. The Brits wisely gave the last of the terrorists a way out of a loosing situation to bring an early end to the fighting.

I stand by the logic of my last couple of messages. Let me give another example.
Say there is a band of domestic terrorists blowing up abortion clinics. Do we negotiate with them? Of course not.
Again the principal applies. There is no justification for blowing up an abortion clinic. Reasonable people may disagree on the morality of abortion, but no reasonable person believes murder is the answer.
How are you going to compromise with the people who plant explosives in abortion clinics?
Are you going to toughen restrictions on abortion?
Are you going to try to see things from their point of view?
Hell NO! The two issues are separate; the issue of abortion is irrelevant to how you deal with the bomber.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 288
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 1:10 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Sorry, I skipped a bit in the middle. The point of the Israeli example is that Arabs don't see the US doing much to rein the Israeli government in. We've paid too much attention to helping Sharon save face and none for saving Arafat's. I don't care a damn about Arafat's dignity--he'll do fine untill his old pals catch up with him in exile--but Sharon needs a few public bitch slaps as well. For balance.

The Israelis are the major power in the region. They have nukes, missiles, tanks, fighter jets posion gas, germ bombs, and a modern and disciplined army. They were never in any serious danger of any direct Iraqi attack. I suspect after the Scud potshots 12 years ago, they quietly let Hussein know that next time Baghdad would become a radioactive crater.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 287
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 12:58 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

MD, I think it's more a case of "you park your car in front of your neighbor's driveway. His kid has a sudden illness and dies because your neighbor couldn't get him to a hospital in time. Then he kills your kid." He's still not justified, not exactly, because you didn't know his kid would get ill. But "you" should have known something like this would happen sooner or later. And, oddly enough, fine distinctions are lost when people come to grief through someone else's carelessness.

This sort of thing has happened to Palestinians in Israel already. The Israelis have restricted border crossings (yeah, I know, because of suicide bombings), and wounded people have died because ambulances weren't allowed across.

(Source: BBCWorld) It's gonna get worse because of the Wall the Israelis are building along the Green Line (except where they're shaving off Palestinian land to protect some post-1967 settlements. To Bush's credit, he's said he'll take the cost of the Wall out of US loan guarantees to Israel--a lot of those loans got to settlers--but it won't mean a lot unless the wall comes down.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 840
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 12:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

MD,

You say that you can't negotiate with terrorists, you can't negotiate with hate.

Of course you can. Explain what has happened in Northern Ireland then? Terrorists have been negotiated with. Hate has been negotiated with. The killing has mainly stopped. For 40 years the British government took an uncompromising view on not negotiating with the IRA and tried to defat the IRA by using military force, it got them nowhere and cost many thousands of lives.

Hate is not some evil force with a life of its own. People are not born automatically with hatred. Hatred is as a result of environmental experiences. There is always a reason for hatred. The underlying issues giving rise to the hatred have to be addressed through negotiation if any progress is to be made. Otherwise the reasons for the hatred will continue and for every hate-filled terrorist you kill there will be another ready to fill his shoes. As unpalatable as it may seem, eventually you have to sit around the table with terrorists. The longer you delay the inevitable the more lives will be lost.

As for the 9-11 attacks. I agree they were not justifiable, but if you don't want similar acts in future then the issues that gave rise to the 9-11 attacks have to be examined and changes made to reduce the chances of future attacks. Its no good taking the view that the West bears no responsibility at all to the circumstances that gave rise to these attacks. Its no good taking the view that because we have been heinously attacked we should not try to change the conditions that gave rise to this (such as our relationship with the Middle-East and Israel). Waving a big military stick around and using tanks and bombs will not defeat terrorists.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 341
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 6:05 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"And yes what the US has done in the past is relevant, as is the relationship with Israel"

In terms of dealing with terrorism I couldn't disagree with you more. Let me give you an example of what I meant when I said "The 9-11 attacks on America were not justifiable, therefore our relationship with Israel is irrelevant to the situation":

Let's say you have a neighbor and one day you park your car and block his driveway. He can't get to work and he looses his job. In anger he comes over to your house and kills one of your children. Now is the act of parking your car relevant to the situation? Are you going to go over to his house and negotiate with him about property rights and parking privileges? His act was unjustifiable therefore nothing you may have done in the past is relevant to the situation.

Negotiating with terrorists is much like dealing with that fictional neighbor. You can't treat irrational people as if they were sane. You can't negotiate with hate.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 839
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Saturday, August 9, 2003 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

As to our friend and ally Saudi Arabia. The 6 jailed Britons (2 awaiting execution) for the 'bootleg booze' bomb in Saudi Arabia (that killed 1 Briton and wounded several others) are being given clemency. Part of the deal is that the accused apologise to the Saudi government.

They arrest you (for a bombing actually carried out by anti-Western Islamic terrorists), they torture you to extract a confession, they convict you in a kangaroo court, they stick you in jail for over 2 years (while you await your executon by public beheading), all for something that it is clear you didn't do, and then you're expected to apologise to them. And British diplomats then put pressure on you not to speak ill of the Saudi Government after the event because Her Majesty's Government wouldn't want to embarrass the Saudis. Rather than admit that there were anti-Western terrorists operating within Saudi Arabia, the Saudis round up a half a dozen Britons put 2 on death row, and jail the other 4 for 12 years.

And our governments still lick the Saudi Royal family's backsides! They're scum and its about time we started treating them a bit more like the scum they are.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 838
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Saturday, August 9, 2003 - 12:52 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"The only way to deal with terrorists is to destroy them"

And how do you destroy them? How can you destroy what you cannot see? How can you destroy what is constantly changing? With tanks and bombs? With an iron military fist? It may look good to the folks back home to be seen such wielding military might but it doesn't work when dealing with terrorists. And what happens when you do destroy individual terrorists? There will be many more willing would-be terrorists eager to take their place.

Military solutions do not defeat terrorism. The only way to deal with terrorism is to deal with the conditions that give rise to terrorism. Stopping terrorism is not about 'rooting out the bad guys'. Individual terrorists are really not all that relevant, the terrorism will continue as long as the conditions that breed it continue. There's no point thinking in terms of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. And yes what the US has done in the past is relevant, as is the relationship with Israel; this has given rise to anti-US terrorism and it is in tackling the causes of terrorism that the solution will be found (not by wielding an iron fist).

Look at Northern Ireland. The might of the British army could not defeat a few hundred IRA men. For nearly 4 decades the IRA have been undefeated by the British army (30,000 troops stationed there at the peak of the troubles). What happened in the end? The British government sat around the table to negotiate with the IRA and offer concessions in return for an end to violence. Was the British government wrong in doing this? Would they have been wiser to send even more troops to Northern Ireland and carry on for the next half century or more (with the numbers of dead civilians and soldiers continuing to increase)?
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 339
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Saturday, August 9, 2003 - 10:05 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Political rather than military solutions are the way forward, and this involves compromise and giving ground. "

My definition of compromise involves both parties giving ground in order to reach a mutual objective. What do the terrorists have to give? If I pay you so that you will quit attacking me, that's not compromise, that's capitulation.

The only way to deal with terrorists is to destroy them. The more fierce quick and effective you are, the less likely anyone else will attack you.

The 9-11 attacks on America were not justifiable, therefore our relationship with Israel is irrelevant to the situation (that goes for anything else we may have done in the Middle East).
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 836
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Saturday, August 9, 2003 - 1:16 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

MD,

Occupying Iraq will only increase Middle-Eastern hatred towards the USA, more hatred will lead to more anti-Western terrorism, more 9-11s. A US base in the Middle-East will not help the US to defeat terrorism, terrorism is very fluid and flexible, it can move around the globe extremely quickly (unlike the US military). Terrorism will not be defeated through old fashioned military solutions (Northern Ireland is a good example of that). Setting up a military base in Iraq will not reduce terrorism. Political rather than military solutions are the way forward, and this involves compromise and giving ground. The power with the most military might is not necessarily in the strongest position and therefore should not automatically expect the other party to give up most concessions.

Attacks against the US mainland will not simply stop because the terrorists have an easier target to hit. Terrorists look for targets that will cause maximum terror within the population they are trying to terrorise, blowing up a handful American soldiers in Iraq will not have the same impact as blowing up civilians in the heart of the USA. The likes of Bin Laden wants to terrorise the US public, not just kill its soldiers. The attacks on American soldiers in Iraq will be made by people (who see themselves as Iraqi freedom fighters) who specifically want the US to get out of Iraq. Those (like Bin Laden) who have a much broader agenda will not be deterred from attacking the US mainland simply because there are US troops in Iraq.

But why does the Arab world seem to hate us so much? At one stage (pre Israel) the Arab world were our very close friends and allies. Its not because of our wealth (the general population of Saudi hate us). Its not a religious issue (as a religion Christianity is respected by Islam). Its because of the West's unquestioning support for Israel and its treatment of the indigenous Palestinian people. Why does the West continue to arm (with WMDs) and unquestionably back Israel? The Cold War is over, the USSR is no longer backing the Arab states, they are not automatically our enemies.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 336
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 5:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Here's a little Chinese strategy. I've quoted Sun Tzu before and I beleive he's one of the best tacticians who ever lived.

I post this because I see it being played out against us. Of course I could just be paranoid.

Moving the Opponent
Sun Tzu said:

A sudden force can move boulders like charging waters. Perfect timing allows an eagle to pounce on its prey for the kill.

Hence those who are skilled in conflict are like an arrow on a drawn bow, ready to be release, at the opportune moment.

The coming and going; blending and merging; chaos and tumult. All seems to make the confrontation disordered, yet there is no disorder.

Apparently disorder is a product of control and fear is a product of courage and vulnerability a product of possession.

Control or disorder is a matter of analysis. Courage or fear is a matter of direction and possession. Vulnerability is a matter of positioning.

Skillfulness in moving an opponent comes from positioning the opponent that is compelled to follow and gifts for the opponent that is compelled to take.

Through the promise of gain,
an opponent is moved about,
while the team lies in wait.

Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 335
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 5:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

LH,

I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but you certainly make a case for the US establishing a base in Iraq.

If as you say attacks on the order of 9-11 can be carried out without the help of a super-power, then we sure as hell need a presence in the middle east.
At least then anger can be directed against our military presence there, rather than our civilian population at home.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page