The Real Americans, looney loons gone wild

THE ORIGINAL HILDABEAST!! HANOI JANE, NOW JANE Da SHIA-TAMATOR!!

DUMBER and DUMBEST!!

Sean, I got Coke Dream, Da-PEN-NALIST

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0111-31.htm

A Tejasian Legend in her own mind!!

If far left were facing left, molly would be facing far left!!

If the utimate cynic and pessismist were but 5 foot tall, Lefty Molly would be 12 foot tall!!


Molly Ivins: Not. backing. Hillary.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/ivi...lary/index.html

D2r2

Why, sir, do you keep on with the "twit-links"?

They are stupider than you are, but granted longer winded. Are they ALL your mommie?
Bean

Merely the thought of the surge is already working. MARK

Not to put too fine a point on it, but which war did GENERAL MACAFFERY win? Pretty sure he knows how to loose them, and he's showing that skill once again. He just says quit fighting and talk to the winners when they have time for a chat. I've completely lost any regard I had for multi-star politicians, and the heroes that fight these wars should be put in charge of killing people and breaking things until the enemy quits. We have the ability to kill all of the people and destroy every major human endeavor in Iraq, but so far GENERAL MACAFFERY is getting his way. His answer seems to be that the wrong people are talking. WRONG to who? Wrong to the Iraqis? He obviously hasn't won a war, and doesn't know how.

It stopped being a war when we handed back sovereignty to the Iraqis. Biggest mistake we made, sucumbing to pressure from the UN and Sistanni to speed up the handover. Then we started playing by their rules. The Iraqis simply were not yet capeable of running a country. MARK

Guys, check out newt.org

Our strategy must assume 3 different types of Iraqi governments.
Bean

,
I think you're right in large part about the political situation, still, even weeks after your comments. What needs to change is the American political winds. I'm frustrated by the way the Iraq battle is being prosscuted, but not to the point of retreat. It is incomprehensible to me that the people supporting bombers blowing themselves up in free space, buildings, trains, planes and automobiles will NOT be emboldened by anything other than both an agressive prosecution of the battle in Iraq and resolve to prosecute that battle with American interest above any other. I am sincere when I say that I hope that not a single Iraqi will die beyond today, and I am sincere when I say that I will support the elimination of every Iraqi to secure American victory in Iraq.

The objective must be victory, not the salvation of an Iraqi government. There will be another Iraqi government, and in the end it must not be our enemy. There will be American soldiers in the field either way, but we shouldn't leave Iraq alone until most American guns in Iraq are pointed outside Iraq not inward.

So, ten days or so?





Wait, there must be victory, which is a government in Iraq that is not our enemy but victory is not the salvation of the Iraqi government? Also, you were for the saving of Iraqi life before you were against it?


I ask this, as nicely as I can, to war supporters:

WHAT IS VICTORY?

Running on answering as nicely as I can, this query, which is actually very simple to answer really. As in all queries there is this disguised every present supposition of a statement. That being in this case the opposite of what is victory.

The answer would be the absolute opposite of what the Anti-war supporters would lay out, point by point, as to what would be required of Victory.

There are strategies and goals. Strategies are intended to accomplish goals. The preiminate American goal must be victory, as I defined it in my previous post (most American guns in Iraq pointed outside Iraq and an Iraqi government that is not an American antagonist).

Saving the current Iraqi government would be nice if it is a strategy that meets our goal. Otherwise the current Iraqi government is dispensable.

Killing Iraqis is not a goal, it is a strategy to meet a goal. We should be as efficient as possible at meeting our goal, that would be to minimize dead Iraqis while attaining our goal. Iraq with all of its current inhabitants would be great, but not necessary. I am for killing as few Iraqis as necessary to meet our goal, and for killing no less than is required, and all should be done without prosecuting our soldiers or appologizing until it is done.

I am for victory before everything else, haven't changed my mind or tried to have it both ways. What I have done is to explain that the cost of winning may be very high and we must do so. What I am saying that is different than what our current congressional leadership is advocating is that we threaten the Iraqis with the loss of their lives rather than the withdrawal of our troops unless U.S. victory is won.

It's easy to give examples of victory and defeat in our recent history:

Vietnam: U.S. troops withdrew, S. Vietnam fell millions of people died in the aftermath. Appears to be a model used by our enemies for current battles, and recent battles.

S. Korea: U.S. troops are still there.

Germany: U.S. troops are still there.

Japan: U.S. troops are still there.

So tell me, is victory synonymous with troops coming home? Is American victory in Iraq being advocated in an honest way by the opponents of the war in our new congress?

Victory is defined much better and more elloquently by US Trader's post than my own, but the result is the same in my estimation.

If that situation doesn't arise what's the next step?

If we're in Iraq for the next two years with the same conditions, would you still support Coalition efforts?



Another national Iraqi election to replace another government?



So, yes, you are advocating killing Iraqis for political gain, correct?



But the strategy to attain the goal is to kill Iraqis, according to you.



Well almost 2 millions Iraqis have fled Iraq or migrated towards the center, secured areas, so Operation: Kick the Fools Out is running smoothly.



So, no accountability inside the war over potential war crimes/abuses until it's over, which emboldens the emeny but what if the war extends into 5 more years of this? Way to win hearts and minds!



What's the difference between red and blue if victory is not able to be attained?

Not to mention what you advocate is textbook terrorism, but I digress.



We're not bogged down in any of those countries, outside influences aren't fueling a massive, complicated civil war, and those last two countries formally declared war on us and our allies. (Germany, in a pact with its Axis partners, declared war on the U.S. after we declared war on Japan)

Your point is therefore moot, unless keeping troops in countries we invade is synonymous with victory, then we've already won!





Victory is synonymous with our soldiers not getting killed day after day in a country that quite frankly doesn't like, need, or want us there.



Yes, killing Iraqis.

Thanks for agreeing with me, ustrader!

Which part of WAR do you understand? Politics through violence, that's what it is. The war is started, pick a side, but don't act like everyone will survive your decision. The best you can hope for is that more of your side will survive the conflict. According to me and the news reporters people are dying in the WAR and have been doing so at the hands of America's Muslim antagonists for years. When the discomfort becomes unbearable to the losers of this war they will agree to not kill the winners any more, but according to me that means our enemy loses enough of their family and freinds as to conclude they have lost on their own.

So the good terrorism is when your side conducts it?

So the good terrorism is when your side conducts it?

This logic of the relativist’s faux reality is exactly why those who shine the light of righteous utopian relativism thought the prism of real history and reality, do not see realism’s refraction out the other side.

Faux reality is void of historical common sense; it is not factuality shown supporting historical wisdoms expressed in two common truisms of good verse bad.

One in the Latin; Vae victis! (Woe to the conquered!).

Two, in the American colloquialism of similar common sense reality; “They see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victors belong the spoils of the enemy.”--- William L. Marcy (1786–1857)Speech in the United States Senate, January, 1832.

In truth, history has proven and will continue to prove, what is measured, as good or bad, in the end, in the present and near future, is stonily inscribed and inseparable in who and what, in outcome, become the victor and or the defeated.

The naivety of the mere logic implied within this statement within a query, shows it is a light shown through history's prism resulting in the unseen refraction of the source.

For an honest person would know life is not so simple and that good verse is evil cannot be defined by such Hubris obtuse subjective idioms, bred of utopian euphoria, yet so unrelated to the reality of the true measure of good verse evil in the real world.

Were American and French Revolutionaries not both good and bad depending on the light one shown through the prism of their present and then history's reality? What made them good, was they won, what would have made them bad, would have been their defeat.

Similarly, in the American War Between the States, the Napoleonic wars and the wars against Nazism and Communism, what made good was victory and what made the bad was defeat.

QUOTE

“Our perspective problems originate in the hubris between the imagined reality of cerebral fantasies and the central reality of outcomes of expediency that is the very nature humans and their history. We are not the imagined reality of the cerebral, for that is a cancer on the present, yet, perhaps a cure for the future. We are, instead, the nexus of expedient outcomes in the present, which may or may not be the reality of the morrows. ”

IvyLeagueElitist, your questions are just too simple here. If it were yet verily naught but a naughty nuisance nuanced upon a numismatist, (to coin a phrase [which is to say, e pluribus null {yet but a fortnight for Lady McBeth}])),

Thence wherewith lies the bellow of a great lions? Or for that matter, the loins of a great bellows?

And if war is hell, how can it be so holy to wage hell?

IvyLeagueElitist, your questions are just too simple here. If it were yet verily naught(beyond doubt ofr question, NOTHING) but a naughty( suggestive of sexual impropriety) nuisance act of harm) nuanced (shades of meaning) upon a numismatist(Coin Collector), (to coin a phrase [which is to say, e pluribus null Out of many, none. {yet but a fortnight for Lady McBeth Yo, TEACH, "Macbeth"}])),

Thence (Therefore)wherewith (whereupon)lies the bellow of a great lions ( a plagiarist mendaciousness)? Or for that matter, the loins of a great bellows? (More plagiarist mendacity, why poorly copy me so admiringly, FITS?)?

And if war is hell, how can it be so holy to wage hell?

( As in ALL “statements within a query” used in disguised mendacity of egalitarian relativism. This seed of utopian faux Intelligentsia. Its clarity is bred within its disparate gems of infected artificiality. Posed, on surface to the wrong party, for the wrong reasons and in wrong reason and rationality of our time, for the question needs to be posed to “the true believers” of this shameless conclusion of illusion, Jihad: holy struggle or holy war?

E pluribus unum -: "Out of many, one"

You condone or accept the rationales to terrorize Americans, and condemn as 'terror' those tactics to end American terror. The American government hasn't firebombed or eliminated any city for 50 years, and not a single village for near 40 years. Homes that were destroyed were replaced for survivors of American defense and better than before their governments started killing Americans when we won, but there was a string attached that if they decided kill Americans again we'll blow it up again, with them in it. Where we lost they were on their own, how did they do without "American terror" wise #####? Is empirical data too real for your palate, or are you sure that the world will be saved by your altruism?

I'm not sure I understand the extent to which you expect American altruism. Is it that Americans ignore the existence of their enemies so that their enemies will stop killing Americans, or is it that Americans pay a ransom to their killers so Americans can continue to exist?

echoing Saddam's earlier threat to the US Ambassador,



Tin horn dictators with 3rd rate armies dont use "declared war" against a country like the US. Plausible deniability must be maintained. MARK

So terrorism is defined as only when buildings are firebombed?

Also, I'm not saying America is a terror-state but what some of you advocated I can't humanely call sane, rational thought.

How is it that you define ANY defense of Americans as terror, yet you characterize my statement not sane? Defend me please. Talk to them, ALL of them, you're so damned convincing that I'm sure they won't want to blow up your and my families, right?

ON YOUR KNEES #####! You're free.

Please show me where I defined ANY defence of Americans as terror first of all.

Second, what does the "hurr u wana talk to hour enemys ur week!!" have anything to do with anything I'm saying?

Third, go back to AEI, thanks!

You're right I obviously overstated my case. I apparently missed your rants in support of America's defending itself beyond begging our enemies to forgive us their perception that we are evil without sha'ria law. So enlighten me with your obvious superiority.

Thanks for the AEI thing, I had to Google it to "figger out wut ewe wer tockin about, no weenies thare luved the junk" thanks. Bookmarked it and will add it to my reading list.

I was and still am in support of the War in Afghanistan as a response to the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001. (oh noes a LIEberal is favur of da wahh? my gosh!)

Next question.



Uh, yer welcome.

"The moment of confrontation had come. President Bush warned Saddam
Hussein that if he continued to interfere with United Nations weapons
inspectors and to shoot at American warplanes over Iraq, he would
have to pay the consequences. So Islamic radicals from all over the
Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their
solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression. Chechens in
Persian-lamb hats, Moroccans in caftans, delegates who hailed "from
Jakarta to Dakar," as one Senegalese put it, poured into Baghdad's
Rashid Hotel, where Saddam's minions urged them to embrace jihad
as "the one gate to Paradise." And the greatest holy warrior of
all? "The mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against
the nonbelievers," they were told. "Everyone has a task to do, which
is to go against the American state," declared Saddam's deputy Ezzat
Ibrahim."Our stand now can lead us to final victory, to Paradise.""
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...9/ai_kepm310445

echoing Saddam's earlier threat to the US Ambassador

"If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that
you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm
you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their
size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but
individual Arabs may reach you."
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

The gathering of terrorist at the Rashid hotel was in January of
1993. A month later Ramsi Youssef, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew, who entered the US on an Iraqi
passport blew up a bomb in the basement of WTC with a bomb made by
Abdul Rahman Yasin from Baghdad. Both men fled to Baghdad after the
attacks. A reporter for ABC News spotted Yasin in Baghdad in 1994 and reported that he was operating freely. A neighbor told the reporter that Yasin was working for the Iraqi government. Documents recovered from Iraq indicate that Yasin not only received safe haven but also funding from Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Before 9/11 we still didnt think Iraq posed a threat. After
two attacks we couldnt come to any other conclusion. MARK

The country shooting at U.S. planes, publicly admitting to paying for the bombing of our allies' civilian populations, attempting to assassinate a former U.S. president, hiding their biological weapons capabilities, providing respite care and rehabilitation for wounded Afghan mercenaries, provided training bases for AlQaeda fighters etc etc, did nothing to provoke Ivy to act after 9-11.

When do you respond to these acts of war Ivy? How do you get Saddam's lip print on your anus? Does he pay you or was his mustache self articulating?

The Afghani's only harbored our enemy. We did good, blew them up, no muss no fuss.

What seems to me to be mussed up this time is that GW has found compassion in war. The democrats are being criticized for proposing the "slow-bleed" end to the war, but GW F'd the thing up by expecting a 'slow-bleed' victory. It has never happened, and it is antithetical to our enemy. GW is as unpopular in this war for not allowing U.S. soldiers to kill the enemy as he is for getting into it.

GIs in Iraq have never had all the equipment and armored protection they needed. That is how GW has prevented US troops from killing the enemy.

"Bush's ineptitude has made a regional proxy war a real possibility...Bush's is profoundly in error to think that continued military occupation can forestall further warfare." Juan Cole

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070423/cole

http://www.juancole.com

“A man convinced of his own merit will accept misfortune as an honor, for thus can he persuade others equally ill merited, like D2d2, as well as himself, that he is a worthy target for the arrows of fate. So goes Cole's nisfortune of arrows expressed as his merits of credulity.”



Now for D2d2’s soul mate of often regurgitations as nut who does not fall far from its Juan-ist’s communalist nut tree. Juan, the American Jingoistic, Cole. A Child of the Military, born as Military BRAT in 1952 in FRANCE, a moniker and a ANTI-America pre-disposition obvious simpatico to his still adolescent rebellious anti-military Brat-ism, his synaptic linkage to French Anti-Americanism that was later ossified to his current vitriolic anti-America state from his long time Persian Shi’a origin of Bahá'í Faith psyche, French supremacy ascension and tonal jingoism’s of pro-Jihad doom and gloom naysay, derived from both training, in Middle Eastern and Iranian studies, towards his current temperament and prolific belief in this Great Satan Distemper of and about America and Israel.

No wonder, why, in 2006, Yale University refused his appointment for a prestigious senior Professorship when his critics pointed out his perverse tendency to glorify the Taliban, The Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafi leader Rashid Rida and his recent debate arguing favorably the merits of Ahmadinejad's speeches about Israel with Christopher Hitchens.

Cole has been accused repeatedly for years to be a harsh critic of America and Israel and has written many articles many consider anti-Semitic and anti-American. His repetition even among the left wing is even considered radical and extreme.

Alexander H. Joffe in the Middle East Quarterly has written that "Cole suggests that many American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic theme".

According to Efraim Karsh, Cole has done "hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East", and Karsh characterized Cole's analysis of this era as "derivative". He has also responded to Cole's criticism of Israeli policies and the influence of pro-Israel lobbies, comparing them to accusations that have been made in anti-semitic writings.

Texts
· The Ayatollahs and Democracy in Iraq (Amsterdam University Press, 2006) [ISBN 9789053568897]

· Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi`ite Islam (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002) [ISBN 1860647367]

· Modernity and the Millennium:The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith in the Nineteenth-Century Middle East. New York:Columbia University Press. May, 1998) ISBN 0-231-11081-2

· Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt's `Urabi Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Paperback edn., Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1999)

· Comparing Muslim Societies. [Edited.] (Comparative Studies in Society and History series.) Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1992. Review

· Roots of North Indian Shi`ism in Iran and Iraq: Religion and State in Awadh, 1722-1859. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988; New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991)

· Shi`ism and Social Protest. [Edited, with Nikki Keddie]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986)

· From Iran East and West: Studies in Babi and Baha'i History, vol. 2 [Edited, with Moojan Momen, and contributor.] "Baha'u'llah and the Naqshbandi Sufis in Iraq, 1854-1856." Los Angeles:Kalimat Press, 1984)

· The Imagined Embrace: Gender, Identity and Iranian Ethnicity in Jahangiri Paintings. In Michel Mazzaoui, ed. Safavid Iran and her Neighbors (Salt Lake City: Utah University Press, 2003), pp. 49-62.

· Historiography of the Muslim Brotherhood, essay in Middle East Historiographies: Narrating the Twentieth Century by Israel Gershoni et al, 2006

[edit] Journal Issues

· Rashid Rida on tne the Baha'i Fairth: A Utilitarian Theory of the Spread of Religions, Arab Studies Quarterly 5, 3 (Summer 1983): 276-291

· Nationalism and the Colonial Legacy in the Middle East and Central Asia. Co-edited with Deniz Kandiyoti. Special Issue of The International Journal of Middle East Studies Vol. 34, no. 2 (May 2002), pp. 187-424.

· The United States and Shi‘ite Religious Factions in Post-Ba‘thist Iraq, MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL VOLUME 57, NO. 4, AUTUMN 2003

· The Taliban, Women, and the Hegelian Private Sphere, Social Research- An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences: Islam Private and Public Spheres, Volume 70 No. 2 (Fall 2003)

· The Iraqi Shiites: On the history of America’s would-be allies,, Boston Review, Fall, 2003.

· A Shia Crescent: What Fallout for the United States, J.I. Cole et al Symposium Middle East Policy Council Journal Volume XII, Winter 2005, Number 4

· The Reelection of Bush and the Fate of Iraq, Constellations, Volume 12, no. 2 (June 2005): 164-172.

· A ‘Shiite Crescent’? The Regional Impact of the Iraq War.” Current History. (January 2006): 20-26.
[edit] Translations

· Religion in Iran: From Zoroaster to Baha'u'llah by Alessandro Bausani. [Editor of this English translation of Persia Religiosa, Milan, 1958, and contributor of afterwords and bibliographical updates]. New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press, 2000.

· Broken Wings: A Novel by Kahlil Gibran. [Translation of the Arabic novel, al-Ajnihah al-Mutakassirah.] Ashland, Or.: White Cloud Press, 1998)

· The Vision [ar-Ru'ya] of Kahlil Gibran [prose poems translated from the Arabic]. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1998. [ Hardcover Edn.: Ashland, Or.: White Cloud Press, 1994)

· Spirit Brides [`Ara'is al-muruj] of Kahlil Gibran [short stories translated from the Arabic]. Santa Cruz: White Cloud Press, 1993.

· Letters and Essays 1886-1913 [Rasa'il va Raqa'im] of Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani [tr. from Arabic and Persian]. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1985.

· Miracles and Metaphors [Ad-Durar al-bahiyyah] of Mirza Abu'l-Fadl Gulpaygani [tr. from the Arabic and annotated]. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1982)

Thanks for the info, Trader.

[quote name='d2d2' date='Apr 10 2007, 12:28 AM' post='100883']
GIs in Iraq have never had all the equipment and armored protection they needed. That is how GW has prevented US troops from killing the enemy.

.....

/quote]
This is a sucker argument. Wasn't all that long ago that people on your side of the aisle were defending that armament as "Clinton's military that defeated the enemy" against charges that the military had been cut too severely as to effectively fight. NOW you want to make the argument that Bush's military is underfunded.

This is a silly argument, the military went to war with the best weaponry we had, and upgraded as it was developed and produced, no matter whether it was Clinton's or Bush's military that entered the fight. Clinton, even after expressing his abhoration of the military, would not send Americans to fight under his orders without the best equipment available for both victory and personal survival, and I believe the same is true of Bush who actually served in the equipment.

To make my point more obvious to you, the American's met the Iraqi national army in the desert and eliminated it from this earth. They did so with such impressive efficiency that my Arab freinds were convinced that the Iraqi army retreated into the Iraqi population for months, only later to return and tell me that they had reconsidered after calling home and that I was right in my assertion that huge numbers in the Iraqi military no longer existed, but rather were vaporized by bombs or killed in desolate areas and added to the dust. My argument is that the vaporizarion of the Iraqi's ended too soon, the Iraqi army hasn't killed an American soldier for years, yet people that intend our military harm and their protectors are questioned rather than returning fire upon them.

The USA has the most powerful military on the earth. It's so big, and so over-funded and mis-managed, that incredible sums get wasted and other sums of money never get to where they're needed even within the defense department.

Okay, here's the pie chart from the War Resisters League, as we enter the countdown for income tax filing:

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Oh the logic of the left brain what a mircale of evolution or should I say de-evolution it is.

Do not pay taxes and that will stop the war and;

Social Security Payments to elderly, economic development and assitance, welfare medicare payments to the poor, housing and education assistances, local housing and medical assistance for illegals and the uninsured. Aid to starving and other war ravaged countries. Police funding, fire and emergency funding, medical research and beat goes on in yet another failed limp biscuit mindset of the delusional distortion that is so blinded by its near sightedness it cannot see the consequences for the infected membrances of putrified mucus of idocicy that befails this stupidity of over zealot stupidity's deevolved unreality...

KILL THE WHOLE CREATURE SO AS TO KEEP SOME OF IT FROM HARM!!!

Man o man, that must have come from some disassociate isolated from reality school marm, no doubt about it...

Trader, I repeat...love the pictures you come up with. Thank you.
I would visit the bear pit often just to check them out
Bean