On 2002-05-24 11:58, Marc Lamb wrote:



Marc Lamb claimed back on 2002-04-04 14:13 in this thread:

"And with Bush getting on the Colin Powell board today, in basically pooh poohing Arafat and demanding Israel cease and withdraw in the face of terrorism, I would say the world is a very beautiful place right now.

Kissy, kissy, can't we all just get along? All we are saaaaaaaying is give peace a chance!

I did predict, back in October, you paleos [Mr. Saari](and neo-libs) would win thing thing, didn't I?"

Well, hot off the AP wire today...

MAY 24, 13:30 ET
<FONT SIZE="+2">Rumsfeld: No Plans to Invade Iraq</FONT>
By MATT KELLEY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The United States has no plans to invade Iraq or any other country, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday, but he refused to discuss the Bush administration's thinking about how to deal with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.


I don't like the fact that I was right... don't like it one bit.

I am with you Marc, in not liking the wimpy attitude, but I am not for the idea of comiting our siblings and children to go and fight a war like WW1 where they do as Hemingway said "fight and die like a dog for no good reason".
If you go with S&H's model, most of the military and homeland support (police, fire, EMT, etc) are late wave Xers or Boomers. We are probably going to have to put up with a few more years of Powell and the Silents diplomacy/glad handing if we want to transition into crisis mode correctly. It might gall some, but it is probably for the best. The alternative, as has been suggested by many, could be a civil war style BAAAAAD crisis.
Of course, maybe the AP report is just blowing smoke off saddams butt. You don't let the enemy know you're going to get him ahead of time anymore. You build up your forces and alliances and you squash him like the bug he is (in this case anyway. Isn't saddam Arabic for "cockroach"?)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-05-24 12:24 ]</font>

As always, it's for the children... :smile:


Adam G. Mersereau argues my case in...
<FONT SIZE="+2">The case for a total war.</FONT>


"Americans may well decide that we are unwilling to wage total war against the nations that harbor and enable terrorists, and that we must settle for less than total victory in this "asymmetrical" struggle. That is our prerogative. But by not rebuilding our military, our government is taking total war, or even the threat of total war, almost completely off the table. This will not go unnoticed by our enemies. The superior tactics and technology of our small force will no doubt yield impressive battlefield results in the current war and in future conflicts, but in the long run our small-force philosophy will create the vacuum that several freedom-hating cultures have been waiting for. And our children or our grandchildren will have to face the reality of total war because we were too arrogant to face it."

Concerning the Mersereau quote above,let me quickly say that the debate about the survival of a civilization can be quickly settled, whenever there is a sense that the civilization lacks the willpower to defend itself.

This "death wish" could be subconsciously expressed through political in-fighting leading to gridlock, or the adherence to high-minded yet spurious causes, e.g. "let's cut the defense budget so we can give more money to poor people, rather than to a bloated and corrupt military-industrial complex."

Earthshine writes,
"I am with you Marc, in not liking the wimpy attitude, but I am not for the idea of comiting our siblings and children to go and fight a war like WW1 where they do as Hemingway said "fight and die like a dog for no good reason"."

What makes you think we are cyclically similar to WW1 right now. Funny, I just read your response to Mike Alexander. He believes we are now in a fourth turn, not a third.

Hi!

On 2002-05-24 12:53, Marc Lamb wrote:

As always, it's for the children... :smile:


Adam G. Mersereau argues my case in...
<FONT SIZE="+2">The case for a total war.</FONT>


"Americans may well decide that we are unwilling to wage total war against the nations that harbor and enable terrorists, and that we must settle for less than total victory in this "asymmetrical" struggle. That is our prerogative. But by not rebuilding our military, our government is taking total war, or even the threat of total war, almost completely off the table. This will not go unnoticed by our enemies. The superior tactics and technology of our small force will no doubt yield impressive battlefield results in the current war and in future conflicts, but in the long run our small-force philosophy will create the vacuum that several freedom-hating cultures have been waiting for. And our children or our grandchildren will have to face the reality of total war because we were too arrogant to face it."

Marc,
Total war is a state of mind, not how much you spend on your military. WW1 was not a total war however for most countries fighting it took as much resources and effort for those countries as WW2 did. Total war means that the enemy must be defeated at all costs and the threat totally destroyed forever.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-05-24 17:27 ]</font>

On 2002-05-18 16:54, JayN wrote:
From the Islamic magazine

http://www.khilafah.com/home/lograph...D=4141&TagID=2

Ground-Imaging Forensic Radar Exam Of WWII Treblinka Camp
uploaded 18 May 2002

A detailed forensic examination of the site of the wartime Treblinka camp, using sophisticated electronic ground radar, has found no evidence of mass graves there.

For six days in October 1999, an Australian team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination of the soil at the site of the former Treblinka II camp in Poland, where, Holocaust historians say, more than half a million Jews were put to death in gas chambers and then buried in mass graves.

...

BULLSHIT ALERT! BULLSHIT ALERT!

This is one of the easiest way to spot "revisionist" history on the part of holocaust deniers or creationist provers. It's called "spot the professional".

For the most part, it's really hard to find truly educated people to believe such nonsense. So most articles of this sort usually have a few things in common:

(1) They can't find a real professional in the appropriate field.

(2) They substitute someone who "sounds" like a professional in their place, and play up their "credentials".

Some examples: "Dr. David Smith" when he's really a doctor of divinity, "John Doe, who has 20 years of research in the field" even though the research is all his own nutball theories, or "Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer," when the true professional would of course be a forensic archaeologist.

(P.S. Note the extra use of the word "qualified" for emphasis. A dead giveaway!)

They're easy and fun to spot. Try it at home, kids!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: aaa1969 on 2002-05-30 11:13 ]</font>

<FONT SIZE="+2">Israeli Tanks Fire on Arafat Compound-Palestinians</FONT>


Here we go again! If at first, second, third... for the umpteenth time you don't succeed, just keep on trying, I guess.

Honestly, folks, anybody who thinks that 9/11 was the beginning of a fourth turn... really ought to think again (or change your definition).




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-05 20:09 ]</font>

On 2002-06-05 20:07, Marc Lamb wrote:

Here we go again! If at first, second, third... for the umpteenth time you don't succeed, just keep on trying, I guess.

Honestly, folks, anybody who thinks that 9/11 was the beginning of a fourth turn... really ought to think again (or change your definition).

Apparently even Israel isn't quite ready for total war. For if they were, they'd certainly have taken out Gaza City with a baby nuke by now-- which would either end their kamikaze problem once and for all, or say to the Palestinian terrorists "let's roll".

So we can safely assume that the Middle East at least is still 3T. I think it's possible that we are too, but I still lean 4T.

Headline at Drudge...

<FONT SIZE="+2">Arafat Defiant After Israeli Raid on Compound </FONT>


I say, deport the terrorist thug to the United States of America! We seemed to have taken quite a shining to terrorists since last September.

Hell, fly him into Washington D.C., and let him live with Colin Powell. Maybe they can do Letterman a couple of times. Then, maybe swing over to Oprah and shed a few tears on what a lousy rap that terrorists get these days. They'll be the hottest thing since Bono and Mr. O'Neill in Africa!

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-06-06 09:44 ]</font>

Let's cut out this "two-state solution" nonsense right now. That has about as much chance of happening as the Crittenden Compromise had of forestalling the Civil War.

Think of the "Holy Land" as a high-stakes poker table. There's going to be a showdown, and the "pot" will not be split.

May the strongest and most ruthless side win!

Temporarily at least, I see Israel & Palestine both "winning", in that:

Israel will be more secure, and

Palestine will get a de facto state, stoppage of most Israeli settlements, and assurance that Israel won't expand into the West Bank.


How? Sharon's wall. He's creating a new boundary, including any nearby settlements, dumping the far away ones. The rightists are mad at him. The Palestinians are mad at him because most of the wall is built on their land. But in the end, the wall will be the border.

For the Israeli civilian population's sake, I hope it's going to end up being a little more than just an electrified fence. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Berlin Wall complex that the East German government built to keep it's people *in*. After all, what can keep people *in* against their will, can also be used to keep them *out*. And it had better be built to protect the *entire* Israeli border, not just the borders with 'Palestine'.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-06-17 10:56 ]</font>

Last Sunday the San Francisco Chronicle published a couple of letters whining about the 400,000 Palestinians made "homeless" when the state of Israel was first created. If Canadian historian James Bacque is to be believed, the Arabs' World War II allies - the Germans - fared far worse, with as many as 19 million dispossessed and up to 13.7 million killed, either outright or due to engineered starvation and pestilence (the full - and rather shocking - details can be seen in Crimes and Mercies; Bacque's second book on the same subject, Other Losses, asserts that more than one million German prisoners of war were intentionally or at least semi-intentionally done to death by Allied forces in the 3 1/2 years after V-E Day).

Sunday's Chronicle also featured a rather interesting "Point/Counterpoint" consisting of two essays, one written by your classic self-hating Jew urging Israel to "end the occupation now;" but the other one was even more curious - its author was a young Palestinian who is against the establishment of a Palestinian state, advocating instead a "civil rights" movement in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King designed to win full equality for Arabs within Israel. (What the writer cleverly neglects to point out is that this is merely a scheme to destroy Israel using babies rather than bombs; considering the much higher Arab birth rate, their "majority" would end up "ruling" Israel by the middle of the century if not sooner).

_________________
"Whatever" - it's not just a word, it's a way of life!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Buster Brown on 2002-06-26 07:01 ]</font>

On 2002-06-26 06:45, Buster Brown wrote:
Last Sunday the San Francisco Chronicle published a couple of letters whining about the 400,000 Palestinians made "homeless" when the state of Israel was first created. If Canadian author James Bacque is to be believed, the Arabs' World War II allies - the Germans - fared far worse, with as many as 19 million dispossessed and up to 13.7 million killed, either outright or due to engineered starvation and pestilence (the full - and rather shocking - details can be seen in Crimes and Mercies; Bacque's second book on the same subject, Other Losses, asserts that more than one million German prisoners of war were intentionally or at least semi-intentionally done to death by Allied forces in the 3 1/2 years after V-E Day).

Funny how many sources nowadays neglect to mention the fact that the vast majority of the postwar suffering of the Germans was engineered by 'Uncle Joe' Stalin and the Soviets. (Perhaps hoping to create room for the US to take the blame instead?) Of course, there is room to say that the Russians were at least somewhat justified in their barbaric behavior towards any and all Germans who fell into their hands during the last two years of the war, after the equally barbaric way the Germans had behaved towards them. And the last German POW's in Soviet hands were not released until almost ten years after the war ended. (By which time Stalin was safely in his grave.)

Sunday's Chronicle also featured a rather curious "Point/Counterpoint" consisting of two essays, one written by your classic self-hating Jew urging Israel to "end the occupation now;" but the other one was even more curious - its author was a young Palestinian who is against the establishment of a Palestinian state, advocating instead a "civil rights" movement in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King designed to win full equality for Arabs within Israel. (What the writer cleverly neglects to mention, though, is that this is merely a scheme to destroy Israel with babies rather than bombs; considering the much higher Arab birth rate, their "majority" would end up "ruling" Israel by the middle of the century if not sooner).

And given how the Arabs feel towards Jews, does anyone really think that if said 'Civil Rights' movement succeeded, that once the Arabs became the majority, they would show *any* consideration for the Jews at all?

What is interesting about Bacque's book is that its #1 "villain" (no one else even comes close) is Henry Morgenthau, FDR's treasury secretary, and the #1 "hero" is none other than Herbert Hoover - the same Herbert Hoover who, some would say, adamantly refused to feed his fellow Americans during the Depression yet was so compassionate toward what was until just beforehand a wartime enemy.

On 2002-06-26 07:21, Buster Brown wrote:
What is interesting about Bacque's book is that its #1 "villain" (no one else even comes close) is Henry Morgenthau, FDR's treasury secretary, and the #1 "hero" is none other than Herbert Hoover - the same Herbert Hoover who, some would say, adamantly refused to feed his fellow Americans during the Depression yet was so compassionate toward what was until just beforehand a wartime enemy.

Especially considering that Henry Morgenthau's plan for Germany was ultimately pretty much rejected by our government (and the British) as a plan of action, but Stalin carried out it's *spirit* rigorously, where he could, except when Cold War expediency forced a change of tactics.

James Bacque's Crimes and Mercies

On 2002-06-26 08:23, Marc Lamb wrote:



James Bacque's Crimes and Mercies

In regards to the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetenland and the Eastern Provinces of Germany, and the use of POWs as slave labor in the gulags long after the war was over, my statements concerning Stalin's primary complicity stand - even if the US and the British Empire were guilty of other enormities at the end of the war, due to the Morgenthau Plan. Of course, such behavior was par for Stalin's course anyway. Just ask the Crimean Tatars, or, for that matter, those Russians who lost innocent family members not to Hitler's racist brutality, but to Stalin's paranoid purges.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-06-26 08:51 ]</font>

Still, isn't it funny how Leftist academics are SOOOO enamored of not only collective guilt, but collective *hereditary* guilt, which they insist on burdening certain peoples with? Kinda makes you wonder what *they'd* like to see done at some future point in time.

Couple of thoughts on the state of the Middle East.

Iran sort of reminds me of the Soviet Union in the 1980's, the regime is losing control of the people, the people are starving. It would not require much to topple the regime, some backing on our part to the secularist opposition and adopting a hostile attitude to the regime in Teheran. I think something like half the Iranian population want the regime overthrown, I am not sure on the proportion of Iranians who have 'left' Islam (it is probably at least 30% of the population, maybe as high as 50%).

I am very concerned about the oil money which is used to finance these Islamist terrorists, also the false wealth of oil is hiding real problems with the economies of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. I do think the development of alternative energy sources to oil (i.e. hydrogen fuel cell engines) would stop the money feeding into terror groups and expose the reality of these countries economies to the regimes and the people. We should stop supporting regimes like those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, there is a risk that Islamist regimes would take over for a decade or two. However given the experience in Iran a period of a nasty Islamist regime would do a lot of good developing secular societies.

On 2002-06-26 07:47, jds1958xg wrote:
Especially considering that Henry Morgenthau's plan for Germany was ultimately pretty much rejected by our government (and the British) as a plan of action, but Stalin carried out it's *spirit* rigorously, where he could, except when Cold War expediency forced a change of tactics.

Morgenthau's plan was very crazy and probably insane, I am glad it was not carried out.

Iran is undergoing a change. Whether an Awakening or a Crisis, I'm not sure.

http://davidwarrenonline.com/WarRoom/index73.html

On 2002-07-23 18:27, Dominic Flandry wrote:
Iran is undergoing a change. Whether an Awakening or a Crisis, I'm not sure.

http://davidwarrenonline.com/WarRoom/index73.html

Early Unravelling actually, Iran now reminds me of the Soviet Union in the late 1980's. The Islamist regime there seems to be living on borrowed time.

The two countries to watch in the weeks and months ahead could be Bulgaria and Romania!

For these two countries are actually the logical places Bush might turn to for assistance in the apparently-upcoming war against Iraq. If either or both allow Bush the use of bases along the Black Sea, they would be close enough from which to launch the attack that will bring about the "regime change" Bush desires.

And what's in it for Sofia and Bucharest? Immediate membership in NATO, to start with: The Bulgarians and Romanians know what the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs already have, and want in on it themselves. And NATO membership is but one step removed from the obvious, ultimate goal: The European Union. Plus both countries have issues with Muslims that literally date back to the days of the Crusades (and even the Communist Caecescu had a soft spot in his heart for Israel); and since the Russians are now angling for the same thing themselves, no objection from Moscow is likely if either Bulgaria or Romania do decide to help Bush out.

So Bush may be able to find the outside help he needs after all.