Discussion:
Congress Has No Constitutional Power To Micromanage A War
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-01-25 16:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Precisely!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat
------------------------------------------

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Senators-in-Chief
Congress has no Constitutional power to micromanage a war.

Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Wall Street Journal

To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the
Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq.

What we are witnessing is a Federalist Papers illustration of criticism and
micromanagement without responsibility.

Consider the resolution pushed through the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee yesterday by Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, two men who would love to
be President if only they could persuade enough voters to elect them. Both
men voted for the Iraq War. But with that war proving to be more difficult
than they thought, they now want to put themselves on record as opposing any
further attempts to win it.

Their resolution--which passed 12-9--calls for Iraqis to "reach a political
settlement" leading to "reconciliation," as if anyone disagrees with that
necessity. But then it declares that the way to accomplish this is to wash
American hands of the Iraq effort, proposing that U.S. forces retreat to
protect the borders and hunt terrorists.

The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will
miraculously conclude that they must settle their differences. A kind of
reverse field of dreams: If we don't come, they will build it.

The irony is that this is not all that far from the "light footprint"
strategy that the Bush Administration was following last year and which
these same Senators called a failure. It is precisely the inability to
provide security in Baghdad that has led to greater sectarian violence,
especially among Shiites victimized by Sunni car bombs. The purpose of the
new Bush counterinsurgency strategy is to provide more security to the
population in the hopes of making a political settlement easier.

But then such analysis probably takes this resolution more seriously than
most of the Senators do. If they were serious and had the courage of their
convictions, they'd attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort.

BINGO! -- DSH

But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens
next. By passing "non-binding resolutions," they can assail Mr. Bush and
put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.

Yes, that's their strategy. -- DSH

This is not to say that the resolution won't have harmful consequences, at
home and abroad. At home, it further undermines public support for the Iraq
effort. Virginia Republican John Warner even cites a lack of public support
to justify his separate non-binding resolution of criticism for Mr. Bush's
troop "surge." But public pessimism is in part a response to the rhetoric of
failure from political leaders like Mr. Warner. The same Senators then wrap
their own retreat in the defeatism they helped to promote.

In Iraq, all of this undermines the morale of the military and makes their
task that much harder on the ground. When John McCain asked Lieutenant
General David Petraeus that precise question during his confirmation hearing
Tuesday, the next commander of Coalition operations in Iraq said, "It would
not be a beneficial effect, sir."

And when Joe Lieberman asked if such a resolution would give the enemy cause
to believe that Americans were divided, he added, "That's correct, sir."

Several Senators protested and demanded that the general stay out of
domestic politics, but his only offense was telling the truth. Of course the
enemy would take comfort from any Senate declaration that Mr. Bush lacks
domestic support.

All of this also applies to the many Congressional efforts to set
"benchmarks" or otherwise micromanage the battlefield. Hillary Rodham
Clinton says she is "cursed with the responsibility gene" that makes her
unwilling to cut off funds, but instead she proposes to set a cap on U.S.
troops in the theater. So while General Petraeus says he needs more troops
to fulfill his mission, General Clinton says he doesn't. Which battlefield
commander do you trust?

Astute. -- DSH

House Republicans are little better. They blame Mr. Bush and Iraq for their
loss of Congress, rather than their own ethics, earmarks and other failures.

So looking ahead to 2008 they now want to distance themselves from the war
they voted for, albeit also without actually having to vote against it. Thus
their political brainstorm is to demand monthly "benchmarks for success"
that the Bush Administration and Iraqis will have to meet.

So every 30 days, General Petraeus and his men will have to take their
attention away from the Baghdad campaign and instead report to Congress on
how well Iraqis and Americans are communicating with one another, among
other crucial matters. Minority Leader John Boehner is even asking Speaker
Nancy Pelosi to create another special Congressional committee to look over
the general's shoulder. It's a shame Ulysses S. Grant isn't around to tell
them where to put their special committee.

In addition to being feckless, all of this is unconstitutional. As
Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole Constitutional authority to
manage the war effort. Congress has two explicit war powers: It has the
power to declare war, which in the case of Iraq it essentially did with its
resolution of 2003. It also has the power to appropriate funds.

There is a long and unsettled debate over whether Congress can decide to
defund specific military operations once it has created a standing Army. We
lean toward those who believe it cannot, but the Founders surely didn't
imagine that Congress could start dictating when and where the 101st
Airborne could be deployed once a war is under way.

Mr. Bush was conciliatory and respectful in his State of the Union Address
Tuesday night, asking Congress to give his new Iraq strategy a chance. In a
better world, the Members would do so. But if they insist on seeking
political cover by trying to operate as a committee of 535
Commanders-in-Chief, Mr. Bush will have to start reminding Congress who
really has the job.
J Antero
2007-01-25 22:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Precisely!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
------------------------------------------
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Senators-in-Chief
Congress has no Constitutional power to micromanage a war.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Wall Street Journal
To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the
Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq.
Nonsense. Congress has always had a large oversight role in wars.

Before the US had a large standing military (like when the Constitution was
written), the cutting off of funding was a very direct way of ending a war,
or of coercing change. That's the way it was intended by the Founders.
Paul J Gans
2007-01-26 03:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by J Antero
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Precisely!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
------------------------------------------
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Senators-in-Chief
Congress has no Constitutional power to micromanage a war.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Wall Street Journal
To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the
Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq.
Nonsense. Congress has always had a large oversight role in wars.
Before the US had a large standing military (like when the Constitution was
written), the cutting off of funding was a very direct way of ending a war,
or of coercing change. That's the way it was intended by the Founders.
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who we are at war with and watch them fluster.

The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."

Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.

We were at war with Iraq, but that's long over even
if the President refuses to say so. We have an
ambassador there and we recognize the current government
as legitimate.

Having a war on "terrorism" is like having a war
on drugs, drunk driving, and cancer.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
2007-01-26 04:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------

Hilarious!

Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.

In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist Spies,
such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still mightily
annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher WON The
Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many of their proven successful
efforts.

Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.

They have made it crystal clear THEY are at WAR with US -- but Gans, the
academic chemist at New York University -- a complete tyro on National
Security Affairs does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.

Hilarious!

Gans wants us to LOSE in Iraq -- in fact he anserinely insists we have
ALREADY lost -- and he wants the Battle of Iraq in the Global War On
Terrorism to STAY lost -- so his Democrats can win the Presidential
Election of 2008.

Gans could give a damn about the National Interests of the United States and
the Long-Term Security Interests of the American People -- he just wants to
blame the LOSS in Iraq on Bush and the Republicans and WIN that election.

Gans is a Congenital Short-Term Thinker -- because he has no Sense of
History.

His Greatest Fear NOW is that Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki and General
Petraeus will WIN -- and Gans will LOSE Big Time -- come a cropper yet
again -- in concert with his CUT & RUN ALLIES in the Congress, in Academia,
in the Media and in the Democrat Party at large.

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Pogue Gans In Anserine High Dudgeon Is Marvelous Entertainment.

Enjoy!

How Sweet It Is!

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Deus Vult

Sholem Aleichem
Ray O'Hara
2007-01-26 13:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
they were wars against germany and japan. fascism had nothing to do with
it.

in fact after WWII the united states supported every fascist going, chang
in taiwan,
marcos in the phillipines. battista in cuba, franco in spain, peron, somoza
and others too numerous to name south of the border.

war on fascism, you are a fool hinequaters. war on ism indeed.
Paul J Gans
2007-01-26 17:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
Sorry, old sot. We were NOT at war with "fascism". We were
at war with Japan, Germany, Italy and their allied states.

Nor were we at war with "communism". That was mainly a
political struggle, not a military one. *None* of a whole
list of Presidents from Truman to Reagan claimed any wartime
powers except in the few real wars fought during that period.
Those wars were against real nations, North Korea on the one
hand and North Vietnam on the other.

We are currently NOT at war with anybody in any rational
meaning of the term.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Michael O'Neill
2007-01-26 18:01:48 UTC
Permalink
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

[obessing about Gans again]

United Bank together with Fritz Thyssen funded Germany pre WWII.

The Bush Family Fortune was made on the back of that war.

Looks like another instalment is due from the Iraq war.

Those who supply the military must be cackling in their claret.

Never Ending War looks like a real possibility this time around.

So much for the "peace dividend" expected after the cold war.

That doesn't suit the industries that feed off the milintel budget.

M.
Laurence Doering
2007-01-26 19:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
Absolutely! Liberal running dog Gans would probably also
argue that the survival of a Fascist government in Spain until
Generalissimo Franco's death in 1975 meant we didn't even really
win the War on Fascism, at least not on V-J Day in 1945, and that
the postwar existence of Fascist-inspired political groups like
the Christian Phalange in Lebanon and the Ba'ath Party in
Syria and Iraq (until recently) cast even more doubt on
our undeniable total victory over Fascism!

Even more ludicrously, I warrant that the Democrat insect,
Gans, would also quibble that the Cold War was called that to
distinguish it from a "hot war" because *some* thought it
wasn't a Real War, and that the continued existence of
Communist regimes in Cuba and North Korea (not to mention
nominally Communist governments like China and Vietnam)
cast a pall of uncertainty over our glorious victory
in the War on Communism!

Such ravings are, however, the obvious product of a disordered
mind, of someone unable to see The Truth past petty objections
and niggling doubts. The inevitable downfall of The Terrorists,
our subhuman adversaries in the current war, will no doubt
be swift and decisive, just like our glorious triumphs in the
Wars on Fascism and Communism!

The East is red with the Dawn of Victory!

Venceremos!


ljd
D. Spencer Hines
2007-01-26 17:15:22 UTC
Permalink
BINGO!

By Jingo... <g>

DSH
-----------------------------------------------------------

Bush: `I'm the Decision-Maker' on Iraq

26 January 2007

By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, on a collision course with Congress
over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to
the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his
plan.

"I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Bush
said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.

The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send
21,500 troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas. "Some
are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work," he said.

Bush said lawmakers agree that failure in Iraq would be a disaster and
that he chose a strategy that he and his advisers thought would help turn
the tide in Iraq.

The president met with Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, newly confirmed
by the Senate to command U.S. troops in Iraq.

"My instruction to him was 'Get over to the zone as quickly as
possible, and implement a plan that will achieve our goals,'" Bush said.

"You're going into an important battle in the war on terror," he told
Petraeus.

During a photo opportunity, Bush was asked about stepped-up activities
in Iraq against Iranian activities thought to be fueling the violence.

Bush defended the policy, but said it is no indication that the United
States intends to expand the confrontation beyond Iraq's borders.

"That's a presumption that's simply not accurate," Bush said.

But added: "Our policy is going to be to protect our troops. It makes
sense."
Michael O'Neill
2007-01-26 18:05:39 UTC
Permalink
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

[usual drivel]

There is no War on Terror.

Some Ex CIA assets provided an excuse to up the milintel spend.

Some people are joining the feeding frenzy seeking power.

Some people are lost trying to understand.

Some people are getting very rich.

Some people are dying.

Plus ça change...

M.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-01-26 18:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who [sic] we are at war with and watch them fluster.
The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------

Hilarious!

Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.

In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist Spies,
such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still mightily
annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher WON The
Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many of their proven successful
efforts.

Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.

The Global Jihadist Islamofascists have made it crystal clear THEY are at
WAR with US -- but Gans, the academic chemist at New York University and
self-professed "MEDIEVALIST" -- who is a complete tyro on National Security
Affairs -- does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.

Hilarious!

Gans wants us to LOSE in Iraq -- in fact he anserinely insists we have
ALREADY lost -- and he wants the Battle of Iraq in the Global War On
Terrorism to STAY lost -- so his Democrats can win the Presidential
Election of 2008.

Gans could give a damn about the National Interests of the United States and
the Long-Term Security Interests of the American People -- he just wants to
blame the LOSS in Iraq on Bush and the Republicans and WIN that election.

Gans is a Congenital Short-Term Thinker -- because he has no Sense of
History.

His Greatest Fear NOW is that Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki and General
Petraeus will WIN -- and Gans will LOSE Big Time -- come a cropper yet
again -- in concert with his CUT & RUN ALLIES in the Congress, in Academia,
in the Media and in the Democrat Party at large.

Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.

Pogue Gans In Anserine, Rampant Pogueish High Dudgeon Is Marvelous
Entertainment.

Further, he STILL can't get WHO and WHOM straight -- even after all sorts of
instruction in Basic English Grammar from Renia and from me.

Dumb as a sack of hammers -- that's my pet marmot.

Gans's portrait:

Loading Image...

Enjoy!

How Sweet It Is!

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Deus Vult

Sholem Aleichem
Paul J Gans
2007-01-27 01:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who [sic] we are at war with and watch them fluster.
The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist Spies,
such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still mightily
annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher WON The
Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many of their proven successful
efforts.
Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.
The Global Jihadist Islamofascists have made it crystal clear THEY are at
WAR with US -- but Gans, the academic chemist at New York University and
self-professed "MEDIEVALIST" -- who is a complete tyro on National Security
Affairs -- does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.
And just a moment ago you claimed we were at war with
"terrorists".

You do understand that the term "Global Jihadist Islamofascism"
is a made-up term. Nobody actually calls themselves a "Global
Jihadist Islamofascist".

So I gather we are at war with a spooky gang of folks scattered
around the world having no specific location, no distinguishing
marks, and no particular leader.

Ignoring the stupidity of such a thing (imagine massing armies
to go an fight where? In somebody's basement in London? In
an apartment in Mecca? In a loft in Islamabad? In a garage
in Berlin?

Will tanks even fit into those locations? How many thousand
men do we need to invade such a meeting? And doesn't the
fact that all those locations are part of some nation that
might resent our sending the Marines into *their* national
territory without their permission?

And of course, the ultimate question: if what you say is
true, why aren't we busy bombing those basements and
apartments? Why are we instead involved in somebody else's
civil war in Iraq?

I don't expect you to answer any of these questions. They
are clearly too deep for you. But do me one favor. Tell
me how I can actually identify a Global Jihadist Islamofascist
when I see one? Does he have a secret handshake? Or does
he wear a handkerchief in a certain way? Or perhaps a
jaunty beret? I'm dying to know.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
La N
2007-01-27 02:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who [sic] we are at war with and watch them fluster.
The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist Spies,
such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still mightily
annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher WON The
Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many of their proven successful
efforts.
Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.
The Global Jihadist Islamofascists have made it crystal clear THEY are at
WAR with US -- but Gans, the academic chemist at New York University and
self-professed "MEDIEVALIST" -- who is a complete tyro on National Security
Affairs -- does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.
And just a moment ago you claimed we were at war with
"terrorists".
You do understand that the term "Global Jihadist Islamofascism"
is a made-up term. Nobody actually calls themselves a "Global
Jihadist Islamofascist".
So I gather we are at war with a spooky gang of folks scattered
around the world having no specific location, no distinguishing
marks, and no particular leader.
Ignoring the stupidity of such a thing (imagine massing armies
to go an fight where? In somebody's basement in London? In
an apartment in Mecca? In a loft in Islamabad? In a garage
in Berlin?
Will tanks even fit into those locations? How many thousand
men do we need to invade such a meeting? And doesn't the
fact that all those locations are part of some nation that
might resent our sending the Marines into *their* national
territory without their permission?
And of course, the ultimate question: if what you say is
true, why aren't we busy bombing those basements and
apartments? Why are we instead involved in somebody else's
civil war in Iraq?
I don't expect you to answer any of these questions. They
are clearly too deep for you. But do me one favor. Tell
me how I can actually identify a Global Jihadist Islamofascist
when I see one? Does he have a secret handshake? Or does
he wear a handkerchief in a certain way? Or perhaps a
jaunty beret? I'm dying to know.
You're right, Gans. There is no such thing as "Global Jihadist
Islamofascism" or even just "Islamofascists."

However, given that 4 out of 10 Americans now admit to being prejudiced
against Muslims, many believing that the West is engaged in a war against
Islam, and given that GWB unleased Hell in the early stages when he referred
to this venture as a "Crusade" ....

... I think we are already starting to see younger more moderate Muslims in
the U.S. and abroad becoming very angry by this kind of rhetoric and, in
reaction, feeling a bit more sympathetic to the more radical element. Then
you have the poor Iraqi children who have known nothing but violence since
the invasion of their country, who have witnessed slaughter of their loved
ones, and who - rightly or wrongly - blame America for this ... these are
the up-and-coming radical "terrorists", kids who might have one day dreamt
only about becoming soccer stars or doctors .... When all they have known is
violence, fear, hatred, this will be expressed in a like way towards the
West when they are old enough to carry a gun ....

- nilita
Billzz
2007-01-27 03:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by La N
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who [sic] we are at war with and watch them fluster.
The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist Spies,
such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still mightily
annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher WON The
Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many of their proven successful
efforts.
Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.
The Global Jihadist Islamofascists have made it crystal clear THEY are at
WAR with US -- but Gans, the academic chemist at New York University and
self-professed "MEDIEVALIST" -- who is a complete tyro on National Security
Affairs -- does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.
And just a moment ago you claimed we were at war with
"terrorists".
You do understand that the term "Global Jihadist Islamofascism"
is a made-up term. Nobody actually calls themselves a "Global
Jihadist Islamofascist".
So I gather we are at war with a spooky gang of folks scattered
around the world having no specific location, no distinguishing
marks, and no particular leader.
Ignoring the stupidity of such a thing (imagine massing armies
to go an fight where? In somebody's basement in London? In
an apartment in Mecca? In a loft in Islamabad? In a garage
in Berlin?
Will tanks even fit into those locations? How many thousand
men do we need to invade such a meeting? And doesn't the
fact that all those locations are part of some nation that
might resent our sending the Marines into *their* national
territory without their permission?
And of course, the ultimate question: if what you say is
true, why aren't we busy bombing those basements and
apartments? Why are we instead involved in somebody else's
civil war in Iraq?
I don't expect you to answer any of these questions. They
are clearly too deep for you. But do me one favor. Tell
me how I can actually identify a Global Jihadist Islamofascist
when I see one? Does he have a secret handshake? Or does
he wear a handkerchief in a certain way? Or perhaps a
jaunty beret? I'm dying to know.
You're right, Gans. There is no such thing as "Global Jihadist
Islamofascism" or even just "Islamofascists."
However, given that 4 out of 10 Americans now admit to being prejudiced
against Muslims, many believing that the West is engaged in a war against
Islam, and given that GWB unleased Hell in the early stages when he
referred to this venture as a "Crusade" ....
... I think we are already starting to see younger more moderate Muslims
in the U.S. and abroad becoming very angry by this kind of rhetoric and,
in reaction, feeling a bit more sympathetic to the more radical element.
Then you have the poor Iraqi children who have known nothing but violence
since the invasion of their country, who have witnessed slaughter of their
loved ones, and who - rightly or wrongly - blame America for this ...
these are the up-and-coming radical "terrorists", kids who might have one
day dreamt only about becoming soccer stars or doctors .... When all they
have known is violence, fear, hatred, this will be expressed in a like way
towards the West when they are old enough to carry a gun ....
- nilita
Well, you have not broken the code. It really does not make any difference
what anyone in the west believes, or does. Or even if they do nothing.

There is a resurgent Islam, which is doing exactly what it wants, and it
does not make any difference what the west does.

Anyone remember when Yasser Arafat's PLO was accused of something and he
replied that it was not him, it was Black September, or Hamas, or Hezbollah,
or any number of a hundred terrorist organizations that spring up, get
caught, disappear then reappear.

And western people, immersed in the Christian guilt, think, "What have we
done? It must be something that we have done. It has nothing at all to do
with what "we" have done, or not done. Militant Islam is coming to a
neighborhood near you - maybe yours.

An anthopologist has stated that they are "all chiefs and no indians" and
will always be spintered, so can never be a civilization, only harass
others.

Soccer stars and doctors? Only within a western society, which the
terrorist rejects.

Anyway, I've recommended the following, and some have read it, but few
believe it.....



Read "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order".

by Samuel P. Huntington.

Although written in 1996 it tells what has happened, is happening, and what
will happen, especially in the upcoming conflict of the western civilized
world versus the Islamic challenge.

"Sam Huntington, one of the West's most eminent political scientists,
presents a challenging framework for understanding the realities of global
politics in the next century. "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking
of World Order" is one of the most important books to have emerged since the
end of the cold war." - Henry A. Kissinger

"An intellectual tour de force: bold, imaginative, and provocative. A
seminal work that will revolutionize our understanding of international
affairs." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

Samuel P Huntington is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at
Harvard University, where he is also the director of the John M. Olin
Institute for Stategic Studies and the Chairman of the Harvard Academy for
International and Area Studies. He was the director of security planning
for the National Security Council in the Carter administration, the founder
and coeditor of "Foreign Policy" and the president of the American Political
Science Association.

page 209 - "Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued
that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent
Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate
otherwise."

page 257 - " Three different compilations of data thus yield the same
conclusion: In the early 1900s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup
violence than were non-muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of
intercivilizational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam's
borders are bloody and so are its innards."
La N
2007-01-27 03:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billzz
Post by La N
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who [sic] we are at war with and watch them fluster.
The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist Spies,
such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still mightily
annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher WON The
Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many of their proven successful
efforts.
Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.
The Global Jihadist Islamofascists have made it crystal clear THEY are at
WAR with US -- but Gans, the academic chemist at New York University and
self-professed "MEDIEVALIST" -- who is a complete tyro on National Security
Affairs -- does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.
And just a moment ago you claimed we were at war with
"terrorists".
You do understand that the term "Global Jihadist Islamofascism"
is a made-up term. Nobody actually calls themselves a "Global
Jihadist Islamofascist".
So I gather we are at war with a spooky gang of folks scattered
around the world having no specific location, no distinguishing
marks, and no particular leader.
Ignoring the stupidity of such a thing (imagine massing armies
to go an fight where? In somebody's basement in London? In
an apartment in Mecca? In a loft in Islamabad? In a garage
in Berlin?
Will tanks even fit into those locations? How many thousand
men do we need to invade such a meeting? And doesn't the
fact that all those locations are part of some nation that
might resent our sending the Marines into *their* national
territory without their permission?
And of course, the ultimate question: if what you say is
true, why aren't we busy bombing those basements and
apartments? Why are we instead involved in somebody else's
civil war in Iraq?
I don't expect you to answer any of these questions. They
are clearly too deep for you. But do me one favor. Tell
me how I can actually identify a Global Jihadist Islamofascist
when I see one? Does he have a secret handshake? Or does
he wear a handkerchief in a certain way? Or perhaps a
jaunty beret? I'm dying to know.
You're right, Gans. There is no such thing as "Global Jihadist
Islamofascism" or even just "Islamofascists."
However, given that 4 out of 10 Americans now admit to being prejudiced
against Muslims, many believing that the West is engaged in a war against
Islam, and given that GWB unleased Hell in the early stages when he
referred to this venture as a "Crusade" ....
... I think we are already starting to see younger more moderate Muslims
in the U.S. and abroad becoming very angry by this kind of rhetoric and,
in reaction, feeling a bit more sympathetic to the more radical element.
Then you have the poor Iraqi children who have known nothing but violence
since the invasion of their country, who have witnessed slaughter of
their loved ones, and who - rightly or wrongly - blame America for this
... these are the up-and-coming radical "terrorists", kids who might have
one day dreamt only about becoming soccer stars or doctors .... When all
they have known is violence, fear, hatred, this will be expressed in a
like way towards the West when they are old enough to carry a gun ....
- nilita
Well, you have not broken the code. It really does not make any
difference what anyone in the west believes, or does. Or even if they do
nothing.
There is a resurgent Islam, which is doing exactly what it wants, and it
does not make any difference what the west does.
Anyone remember when Yasser Arafat's PLO was accused of something and he
replied that it was not him, it was Black September, or Hamas, or
Hezbollah, or any number of a hundred terrorist organizations that spring
up, get caught, disappear then reappear.
And western people, immersed in the Christian guilt, think, "What have we
done? It must be something that we have done. It has nothing at all to
do with what "we" have done, or not done. Militant Islam is coming to a
neighborhood near you - maybe yours.
An anthopologist has stated that they are "all chiefs and no indians" and
will always be spintered, so can never be a civilization, only harass
others.
Soccer stars and doctors? Only within a western society, which the
terrorist rejects.
Anyway, I've recommended the following, and some have read it, but few
believe it.....
Read "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order".
by Samuel P. Huntington.
Although written in 1996 it tells what has happened, is happening, and
what will happen, especially in the upcoming conflict of the western
civilized world versus the Islamic challenge.
"Sam Huntington, one of the West's most eminent political scientists,
presents a challenging framework for understanding the realities of global
politics in the next century. "The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order" is one of the most important books to have
emerged since the end of the cold war." - Henry A. Kissinger
"An intellectual tour de force: bold, imaginative, and provocative. A
seminal work that will revolutionize our understanding of international
affairs." - Zbigniew Brzezinski
Samuel P Huntington is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor
at Harvard University, where he is also the director of the John M. Olin
Institute for Stategic Studies and the Chairman of the Harvard Academy for
International and Area Studies. He was the director of security planning
for the National Security Council in the Carter administration, the
founder and coeditor of "Foreign Policy" and the president of the American
Political Science Association.
page 209 - "Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued
that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent
Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate
otherwise."
page 257 - " Three different compilations of data thus yield the same
conclusion: In the early 1900s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup
violence than were non-muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of
intercivilizational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam's
borders are bloody and so are its innards."
Well, I know I've asked you this before, Col. (ret'd) Billzz ... what's the
solution? Was going to Iraq the beginning of the solution? Or did it just
expedite Armaggedon.

- nilita
Billzz
2007-01-27 07:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by La N
Post by Billzz
Post by La N
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who [sic] we are at war with and watch them fluster.
The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist Spies,
such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still mightily
annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher WON The
Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many of their proven successful
efforts.
Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.
The Global Jihadist Islamofascists have made it crystal clear THEY are at
WAR with US -- but Gans, the academic chemist at New York University and
self-professed "MEDIEVALIST" -- who is a complete tyro on National Security
Affairs -- does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.
And just a moment ago you claimed we were at war with
"terrorists".
You do understand that the term "Global Jihadist Islamofascism"
is a made-up term. Nobody actually calls themselves a "Global
Jihadist Islamofascist".
So I gather we are at war with a spooky gang of folks scattered
around the world having no specific location, no distinguishing
marks, and no particular leader.
Ignoring the stupidity of such a thing (imagine massing armies
to go an fight where? In somebody's basement in London? In
an apartment in Mecca? In a loft in Islamabad? In a garage
in Berlin?
Will tanks even fit into those locations? How many thousand
men do we need to invade such a meeting? And doesn't the
fact that all those locations are part of some nation that
might resent our sending the Marines into *their* national
territory without their permission?
And of course, the ultimate question: if what you say is
true, why aren't we busy bombing those basements and
apartments? Why are we instead involved in somebody else's
civil war in Iraq?
I don't expect you to answer any of these questions. They
are clearly too deep for you. But do me one favor. Tell
me how I can actually identify a Global Jihadist Islamofascist
when I see one? Does he have a secret handshake? Or does
he wear a handkerchief in a certain way? Or perhaps a
jaunty beret? I'm dying to know.
You're right, Gans. There is no such thing as "Global Jihadist
Islamofascism" or even just "Islamofascists."
However, given that 4 out of 10 Americans now admit to being prejudiced
against Muslims, many believing that the West is engaged in a war
against Islam, and given that GWB unleased Hell in the early stages when
he referred to this venture as a "Crusade" ....
... I think we are already starting to see younger more moderate Muslims
in the U.S. and abroad becoming very angry by this kind of rhetoric and,
in reaction, feeling a bit more sympathetic to the more radical element.
Then you have the poor Iraqi children who have known nothing but
violence since the invasion of their country, who have witnessed
slaughter of their loved ones, and who - rightly or wrongly - blame
America for this ... these are the up-and-coming radical "terrorists",
kids who might have one day dreamt only about becoming soccer stars or
doctors .... When all they have known is violence, fear, hatred, this
will be expressed in a like way towards the West when they are old
enough to carry a gun ....
- nilita
Well, you have not broken the code. It really does not make any
difference what anyone in the west believes, or does. Or even if they do
nothing.
There is a resurgent Islam, which is doing exactly what it wants, and it
does not make any difference what the west does.
Anyone remember when Yasser Arafat's PLO was accused of something and he
replied that it was not him, it was Black September, or Hamas, or
Hezbollah, or any number of a hundred terrorist organizations that spring
up, get caught, disappear then reappear.
And western people, immersed in the Christian guilt, think, "What have we
done? It must be something that we have done. It has nothing at all to
do with what "we" have done, or not done. Militant Islam is coming to a
neighborhood near you - maybe yours.
An anthopologist has stated that they are "all chiefs and no indians"
and will always be spintered, so can never be a civilization, only harass
others.
Soccer stars and doctors? Only within a western society, which the
terrorist rejects.
Anyway, I've recommended the following, and some have read it, but few
believe it.....
Read "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order".
by Samuel P. Huntington.
Although written in 1996 it tells what has happened, is happening, and
what will happen, especially in the upcoming conflict of the western
civilized world versus the Islamic challenge.
"Sam Huntington, one of the West's most eminent political scientists,
presents a challenging framework for understanding the realities of
global politics in the next century. "The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order" is one of the most important books to have
emerged since the end of the cold war." - Henry A. Kissinger
"An intellectual tour de force: bold, imaginative, and provocative. A
seminal work that will revolutionize our understanding of international
affairs." - Zbigniew Brzezinski
Samuel P Huntington is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor
at Harvard University, where he is also the director of the John M. Olin
Institute for Stategic Studies and the Chairman of the Harvard Academy
for International and Area Studies. He was the director of security
planning for the National Security Council in the Carter administration,
the founder and coeditor of "Foreign Policy" and the president of the
American Political Science Association.
page 209 - "Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have
argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with
violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history
demonstrate otherwise."
page 257 - " Three different compilations of data thus yield the same
conclusion: In the early 1900s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup
violence than were non-muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of
intercivilizational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam's
borders are bloody and so are its innards."
Well, I know I've asked you this before, Col. (ret'd) Billzz ... what's
the solution? Was going to Iraq the beginning of the solution? Or did it
just expedite Armaggedon.
- nilita
My personal opinion is that it does not make any difference what the west
does. Resurgent Islam is on the march, has been on the march, and will be
on the march for the foreseeable future. Iraq didn't do anything except stir
up another hornet's nest of one sect versus another sect. That has been
their history. When I was growing up I learned a naive view of history that
said that the British arbitrarily cut up the middle east and appointed
"foreign" kings (like the Saudi "other family" the Hussein's) to be the
kings of Jordan and Iraq. Maybe they knew what they were doing. It is
obvious that the US coalition doesn't seem to know what to do after the
initial effort, which did not work.

Why they did that I do not know except to state the obvious that before 9/11
was one thing, after 9/11 it is another thing, and I knew that the US would
put together a force to confront the enemy. And if the enemy was not
obvious then it would be time to beat the bushes, and drive the enemy out.
Not a very straightforward plan, but then that seems to be the nature of the
conflict. It's not going to be obvious or overt.

As an aside I used to work with contingency force planning, and there is no
plan, that I know of, that has forces projected to "win" a war, and then has
them return to CONUS, and then return to combat, and then return to CONUS,
and then return to combat, and then return to CONUS. But there are many
units returning for a fourth tour. This is exactly what we said that we
would not do, after Vietnam. But that is exactly what we are doing.
Instead of fielding a sufficient force to win the war, and then return home,
we are doing exactly the same thing as Vietnam. Under the same people that
did the same thing in Vietnam.

Iraq is a questionable pursuit. The long-sought after WMDs are in Syria
(according to the Iraqui major-general who sent them there, and even wrote a
book about it, which no one will even mention) but no one wants to initiate
another war with a "friendly" (insert snort here) Syria.

But it really does not make any difference what the west does. The war is
on. We can do nothing, or we can do something. But the war is on. That is
what a lot of people do not understand. No one has to read anything, or
hear anything, from anyone. Just observe what is happening.
Mike MacKinnon
2007-01-27 09:06:42 UTC
Permalink
"Billzz" <***@starband.net> wrote in message news:aa557$45bb0283$9440b19b$***@STARBAND.NET...
SNIP>
Post by Billzz
Iraq is a questionable pursuit. The long-sought after WMDs are in Syria
a book about it, which no one will even mention) but no one wants to
initiate another war with a "friendly" (insert snort here) Syria.
But it really does not make any difference what the west does. The war is
on. We can do nothing, or we can do something. But the war is on. That
is what a lot of people do not understand. No one has to read anything,
or hear anything, from anyone. Just observe what is happening.
Whether Syria is in possession of the WMDs is questionable. It seems that
the only time Iraqis are believed is when their outbursts fit the situation.

The invasion was wrong. Period! There was no planning, no get out strategy,
no way of returning Iraq to the Iraqis. We're not talking about the 7th
Cavalry riding into battle against the Sioux, we're talking about a war
where the enemy wears no uniforms, looks like the general populace and does
not adhere to fixed battle lines. Sending in more troops will not win the
war, only exacerbate the situation. And just how many troops would be
needed? One for every Iraqi? Just ask the Brits about how they fought the
'war' in NI. They'll tell you that fighting urban guerillas with a standing
army is well nigh impossible. The thinking at Pennsylvania Avenue seems to
be that more troops and more hardware will make a difference. Wrong! It'll
just get you in deeper.

The only solution is to cut and run. The military and the politicans may not
like it, but what else can you do? You can't win.

You've opened a can of worms in the Mid East. You think it was bad before?
You've now taken it to a new low. This will spread through every country
around and will eventually cause the likes of Israel to disappear off the
map. And it will be the fault of Washington! Ask German historians what
happens when politicians and planners try to run a war!

Time to go!

Mike
Hal
2007-01-27 13:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billzz
Post by La N
Well, I know I've asked you this before, Col. (ret'd) Billzz ... what's
the solution? Was going to Iraq the beginning of the solution? Or did it
just expedite Armaggedon.
- nilitaMy personal opinion is that it does not make any difference what the west
does. Resurgent Islam is on the march, has been on the march, and will be
on the march for the foreseeable future. Iraq didn't do anything except stir
up another hornet's nest of one sect versus another sect. That has been
their history. When I was growing up I learned a naive view of history that
said that the British arbitrarily cut up the middle east and appointed
"foreign" kings (like the Saudi "other family" the Hussein's) to be the
kings of Jordan and Iraq. Maybe they knew what they were doing. It is
obvious that the US coalition doesn't seem to know what to do after the
initial effort, which did not work.
Why they did that I do not know except to state the obvious that before 9/11
was one thing, after 9/11 it is another thing, and I knew that the US would
put together a force to confront the enemy. And if the enemy was not
obvious then it would be time to beat the bushes, and drive the enemy out.
Not a very straightforward plan, but then that seems to be the nature of the
conflict. It's not going to be obvious or overt.
As an aside I used to work with contingency force planning, and there is no
plan, that I know of, that has forces projected to "win" a war, and then has
them return to CONUS, and then return to combat, and then return to CONUS,
and then return to combat, and then return to CONUS. But there are many
units returning for a fourth tour. This is exactly what we said that we
would not do, after Vietnam. But that is exactly what we are doing.
Instead of fielding a sufficient force to win the war, and then return home,
we are doing exactly the same thing as Vietnam. Under the same people that
did the same thing in Vietnam.
Iraq is a questionable pursuit. The long-sought after WMDs are in Syria
(according to the Iraqui major-general who sent them there, and even wrote a
book about it, which no one will even mention) but no one wants to initiate
another war with a "friendly" (insert snort here) Syria.
The US administration certainly has a close working relationship with
syria, as it is a favoured nation for the US to send people for
torture. Hearsay and evidence got by torture is now valid in Bush's
invented military 'trials' (insert snort here), but is looked on with
disgust by much of the world.

The WMDs going to syria was second hand hearsay, with no
substantiating evidence. Sada did not claim he sent them or knew
anything about it at the time. He said two friends of his told him
about it long after the fact. The story isn't talked about because
there never was any substance to it. Sada made book sales for a while,
and the WMD claimers were able to point to one Iraqi who knew some
guys that told him...

-------------Begin quote from http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that
transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq
approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by
American troops.

"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust
each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two
pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned
for their safety. But he said they are now employed by other airlines
outside Iraq.

The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted
to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special
Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said,
including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel."
The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice
because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from
Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June
of 2002.

"Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming," Mr. Sada said.
"They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians."

-----------------------end quote---------------------------------

"Mr. Sada said" just doesn't cut it. His book's been out for a year,
but his claim hasn't been substantiated.

Hal

D. Spencer Hines
2007-01-27 02:22:40 UTC
Permalink
None of the Nazis actually called himself or herself a GENOCIDAL MURDERER
either.

Yet they were and killed approximately 6,000,000 Jews and millions of other
innocent non-combatants.

If Gans had something other than a sticky, saponified mass in his noodle he
would understand that.

But he would far rather play at:

SOPHOMORIC SEMANTIC OBFUSCATION...

A VERY POPULAR GAME AT NYU...

And:

One of his Favorite Children's Games.

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by Paul J Gans
Ask one of Bush's supporters, if you can find one,
who [sic] we are at war with and watch them fluster.
The best they can come up with is "We are at war
with terrorism."
Only a Bushite could consider a war on an "ism" as
a real war.
-----------Cordon Sanitaire---------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans obviously didn't believe our Wars On Fascism [World War II] and
Communism [The Cold War], both of which we WON, to be Real Wars.
In fact he was very unsupportive in The Cold War, supported Communist
Spies, such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss, and is still
mightily annoyed that Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret
Thatcher WON The Cold War, with Gans firmly in opposition to many
of their proven successful efforts.
DO NOTE that Gans STILL does not have either the SMARTS, the HONESTY or the
COURAGE to ADMIT he was completely WRONG about:

[Starter Sources For The Uninformed at the URL's cited below. I'm not
endorsing the articles in any way.]

1. The Rosenbergs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

2. Alger Hiss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss

3. Whittaker Chambers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers

4. Ronald Reagan

5. The Cold War

6. The Soviet Union

7. The Vietnam War
Post by Paul J Gans
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Today we are fighting Global Jihadist Islamofascism.
The Global Jihadist Islamofascists have made it crystal clear THEY are at
WAR with US -- but Gans, the academic chemist at New York University and
self-professed "MEDIEVALIST" -- who is a complete tyro on National
Security Affairs -- does NOT want US to be at WAR with THEM.
And just a moment ago you claimed we were at war with
"terrorists".
You do understand that the term "Global Jihadist Islamofascism"
is a made-up term. Nobody actually calls themselves a "Global
Jihadist Islamofascist".
<Gansian _Reductio ad Absurdum_ Sophomoric Rubbish Snipped And Cast In The
Bit Bin>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Turlough
2007-01-27 12:41:01 UTC
Permalink
And doesn't the fact that all those locations are part of some nation that
might resent our sending the Marines into *their* national
territory without their permission?
Excuse me, Mr. Gans, could you re-construct what you're trying to say
into standard English? I can't rationalize your point of view, by
reading incomplete sentences.
I don't expect you to answer any of these questions. They
are clearly too deep for you. But do me one favor. Tell
me how I can actually identify a Global Jihadist Islamofascist
when I see one? Does he have a secret handshake? Or does
he wear a handkerchief in a certain way? Or perhaps a
jaunty beret? I'm dying to know.
Secret handshakes, handkerchiefs, and jaunty berets? We're not exactly
hunting down Freemasons, gay fellows, or bon vivants, Mr. Gans.
According to the US Gov't in May of 2006, we are holding or have held,
detainees in Guantanamo from 47 different countries. I consider that
number indicative of some sort of *global* undertaking, don't you?
Except for an Ozzie named Hicks, I don't see many names like Smith,
Murphy, or Gans on that list. All of the terms that you have ever used
were *made up* at some time in history. Global Jihadist Islamofascist
was certainly coined by someone, as well. As an identifier, it is apt...

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/

Turlough
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...