Friday, February 16, 2007

...from the "internets"

"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known." -- Bush

"We know exactly where Saddam is hiding his WMDs. They're North, South and West of Tikrit. That's a known." -- Rumsfeld

"Filthy liars." -- Me


rick said...

Did you follow any of the very lightly reported missing Iraqi Air Force story earlier in the war? It was very interesting, but was so far below the radar screen that few people know of it. I thought you might, as you do seem to pay close attention.

The Future Was Yesterday said...

This group grabs their claims out of thin air, swears up and down they're true...and get mad when proven not to be. Utterly dumbfounding!!

azgoddess said...

fucking dirty filthy stinking liars -- that's me

now it's time to turn this boat around!!

Mike of the North said...

Rick, is the "...missing Iraqi Air Force" story about those Migs that they found buried around the al-Taqaddum air base? And if so, are you using this as an excuse for bushie boy and rummy's lies. Just wondering.

rick said...

Mike, Are you a Vietnm veteran?

SheaNC said...

Rick, I don't recall the story, but I figure we'd been bombing them for so long anyway, they couldn't have had much of an air force left.

Also, if Mike doesn't mind me saying so, he isn't a vietnam vet, but in a broader sense, he and I, and all of us, are vietnam veterans, in the sense that we as a nation matured at that point from idealistic belief in the benevolence and absolute correctness of American foreign policy, to a more realistic awareness that all the sick human folly that has plagued kingdoms and governments since the beginning of time are flourishing in our own government, too.

Old Broad (going back to Hill soon) said...

Ditto on azgoddess and you.

rick said...

One was either in Vietnam or not. If you were there, you would know what I mean. Others have formed their opinions on what they believed to be second hand information but was invariably eighth and almost always untrue. Really bad movies reinforced the baloney. All very sad. I have encountered too many fools in too many bars filled with too many shots of tequila over the years declaring that “his cousin’s company witnessed such things that he can’t even begin to describe.” Eleanor Clift (columnist) was asked in the fall of 2004, to comment on the swift boat veterans. She said, “They are a bunch of pot smoking baby killers trying to rewrite history.” And so, it has been that way for me these past 39 years.

windspike said...

Wolf! Oop, can't cry that too often and get away with it.

Liars liars, pants on fire; Indeed!

SheaNC said...

Rick, I understand what you're saying about first-hand experience. I was thinking more about the historical perspective; how events since vietnam were influenced by vietnam.

Er... Mike?

rick said...

Of course you are correct on the enormous influence Vietnam has had on everything from that time forward. Bin Ladin himself, when asked about the risks in attacking America, has repeatedly pointed to Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia as evidence that we lack the will to fight. Perhaps he is simply correct in his assessment.

SheaNC said...


Bin Laden's use of the tactic you describe is the same old schoolyard bully routine we all saw as children - some punk tries to goad you into a fight by calling you "chicken."

But as Bin Laden himself has revealed, his real goal was/is to provoke the US into military action in order to inflict economic damage. Remember, Bin Laden was America's ally during the cold war. We funded and aided him when the Soviets tried to take Afghanistan, and we surely educated him as to our tactics and our philosophy: Reagan's plan to win the cold war by destroying the Soviet economy in an arms race. Later, Bin Laden revealed that the idea behind the 9/11 attacks (his part of it, anyway), was to inflict economic damage. He said he hoped to "banktupt the US", or in other words, he is using Reagan's cold war strategy against us. The result is a huge budget surplus turned into an even larger budget deficit, and a military stretched too thin. The bottom line is that Bin Laden won: he wanted to severely damage the US economy, and he achieved that goal. He won, thanks to the neocons and the supporters of the Iraq war.

Of course, the neocons and their Bush administration have gone right along with Bin Laden's plan because, even as the nation's economy suffers, and thousands die, they have used the 9/11 trajedy as an opportunity to enrich themselves as military contractors whose real goal is to maintain and perpetuate permanent warfare. It's their bread and butter. All of which makes the neocons, the Bush administration, and their republican lapdogs, murderous, bloodthirsy traitors.

They also are complicit with Bin Laden by, in my opinion, deliberately allowing him to go free so they can use him as a propaganda tool. Bush said he didn't care about Bin Laden, but he drags the name out every time it is politically expedient to do so. Bin Laden is practically a member of the Bush administration cabinet: his is the face they employ to market their war, and they will do so until they no longer need him, at which point they'll cast him aside the way they did to their former friend and ally Saddam Hussein.

rick said...

I would happily trade what I believe to be your assessment of the “global situation” for that which I believe we face. I do not speak for you, but I believe you think that a really good administration with a superior foreign policy and devoted folks capable of working agreeable treaties would fix much of what is wrong. (My apologies if this is not in your mind) Bin laden is not a pragmatist as have been all the great despots we have faced in the past. He does not seek wealth or real estate or all the trappings desired by a typical tyrant. He is a religious fanatic of biblical proportions and he seeks to bring an end to western civilization as we know it, and impose a 13th century Caliphate on the entire planet. As bad as things seem today, they are going to get unimaginably worse. It will take us more than a generation to win this war, if we are able to win it at all. There will be many fronts. Remember, they have attacked Bali, Madrid, London, Moscow and on and on and on. We are destined, I fear, to lose some of the world’s great cities to nuclear detonations. We have never faced an enemy who would load his wife and three kids into the family van along with his “borrowed” tactical nuclear device and drive into Manhattan and detonate the entire family picnic. It is a simplistic view that the neocons are the cause of this and when the neocons have departed the problem will vanish. There is nothing I would not give for you to be right and me to be wrong.. The truth is, where we stand today has nothing to do with the past six years of American foreign policy, nor the last sixty, for that matter.

A pleasantly drinkable Merlot for me this evening. What quenches thou thirst?

SheaNC said...

"...he seeks to bring an end to western civilization as we know it, and impose a 13th century Caliphate on the entire planet."

That's an area where we differ. I belive Bin Laden and others like him are the result of many, many years of western intervention in their region. The US, the UK, and others have been meddling in that area for a long time, and have done tons of damage there. We have set up puppet regimes, propped up tyrannical dictators, seized control of their resources, and otherwise caused a lot of damage, death and destruction in Arab countries (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...)

Yes, they are driven to acts of desperation that are apalling to us. But if you examine the history objectively, we are largely responsible for creating the monsters from which we now must defend ourselves. And it's been very one-sided. No middle-eastern country has ever invaded or attacked the US, yet we have threatened them and backed it up with military invasion, bombings, and more. Which is more "terrifying"? And if you say that attacks against US military installations abroad are the same as attacks against the American mainland, I say we shouldn't be maintaining military bases on foreign soil to begin with. WWII is over, the cold war is over... and it is certainly understandable that the citizens of a country where the US planted a military base would want us to get out of their country. How would Americans feel if other countries wanted to put their military installations on our soil, and threatened military action against us if we did not behave the way they wanted us to?

The US wanted to put a military base in Saudi Arabia, but they wouldn't let us in. So, George Bush Sr. practically encouraged Hussein to invade Kuwait, which the US then used as leverage to force the Saudis to allow us to put the base there. That was the straw that broke camel's back for Bin Laden. He wants the US out of his homeland; he wants the west to stop meddling where they don't belong. He's not out to overthrow the world, he just thinks Arabia should belong to Arabs, and why shouldn't it? Why can't Iraq belong to Iraqis?

And I'm drinking... ice-water and sharing it with the cat. I wouldn't want to see him drunk.

rick said...

Early in Dec 01 Bin Laden made a video. It was between the first insertion of special ops into Afghanistan in October (I think early Oct) and the later bombing campaign in Tora Bora which I believe was mid December. So, in his 20 minute video he says "and we can never allow a repeat of Andalusia". Subsequently, Zawahiri (Bin Laden's consigliore) made another video and declared a battlefield from Spain to Iraq.

Bin Laden's Andalusia is a reference to Spain's southern province. Islamic armies (Moors) invaded Spain in 711 and were not stopped until they were defeated by Charles Martel at Tours in 732. This battle is generally regarded as having saved Europe. Well, the Moors fell back south of the Pyrenees where they maintained their culture in the palace of Alhambra in Granada. (If you are ever there, it is at very least as magnificent as the Taj Mahal) They were expelled by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492.

So they invaded a country and occupied it for 800 years, then were expelled 500 years ago and they are still angry. So angry about the matter that they continue to mention it no matter how little time they have to speak. They regard Spain, Portugal and much of southern Europe as "occupied Islamic territory". Remember also, that most of greater Arabia was, in fact, Turkey for four hundred years. The meddling of France, Britain and America only began when we defeated the Turks and were left with the daunting task of administering millions of square miles with vastly differing cultures and no political structures in place. And you are correct. Many tyrants were installed and propped up. We have a history of cozying up to tyrants of varying stripes.

I believe we have closed all our bases in Saudi Arabia. But Bin laden's principle aim in Saudi Arabia has always been to bring down the Saudi Royal family and install pure Sharia rule such as the Taliban. And that is precisely what these radical jihadists have planned for the rest of the world. There is evidence of it everywhere.

My two cats are in total agreement.

Mike of the North said...

Sorry about the "drive by" comment earlier.

Rick, No I'm not a vietnam vet. They eliminated the draft about six months after I turned 18. Bin forgotten is right about america's will to fight. I believe it's because of the the average citizen's inate sense of right, wrong and justice. We can be fooled into letting ourselves be pulled into immoral unjust wars, but we really don't have the stomachs for unlimited bloodshed just to prove to the world that we are the baddest of the asses. Let the u.s be invaded or occupied ( a real threat, not one manufactured in order to profit the military industrial complex) and I think you would see an america that does have the stomach for a fight.

As far as the muslim plan for domination of the world if it weren't for the imperial aggression of corporate lackeys like the u.s. for the past sixty years, the voices of radical shia and sunni clerics would be minimized to the point of obscurity. High unemployment and a lack of hope form a fertile breeding ground for the messages of hate that radical clerics, gang leaders and christian white supremacists spew.

So to a point I agree with you, the neocons aren't to blame for what is happening today. They can certainly be blamed for making a bad situation much, much worse.

rick said...

Apology accepted. I, likewise, retract past insults hurled your direction. I began to believe (for reasons unknown) that you were a veteran of that place and I am always looking for the opportunity to welcome a brother home from the jungle. I cannot explain the life altering impact it had on this 20 year old. Guys from that time display a very small number of personality types and I was sure that I detected it in you. Not an insult; purely an observation.

Your thoughts are a bit better organized than you like to put on. We face a great peril regardless of where the blame lays. Despotic tyrants are perfectly content to squander the wealth of their own nations while allowing their populations to believe it is the fault of the west. Neither comes to the table with entirely clean hands. They have raised a generation that believes they can win a free trip to Cancun with 72 virgins just by killing the like of me and thee. I personally would prefer 72 experienced women, but I suppose that’s what makes us more civilized.

Mike of the North said...

Rick, apology accepted... It is rather comforting to be so civil to our countrymen isn't it?

Perhaps the personality trait which (some) vietnam vets and I share is a deep and abiding hatred of what the military industrial complex has done to our country. I used to believe... oh what the hell, It's all gone to hell in a handbasket hasn't it?

Your comment about despotic tyrants ignores the fact that in a large majority of cases it is the u.s. govt that has installed and supported them in order to benefit western corporations. It's hard not to hate those who profit from your misery, que no?

BTW. Your are absolutely right, I have no idea of the impact of that war ( or any war ) on you or the thousands of other 20 somethings that were ground up in its maw. My father turned 21 in Korea, killing red chinese with 73mm recoiless rifles, I lived through many of the after effects of his experiences.

I know lots of vietnam vets too. I'm not so much younger than many of them. I appreciate your sacrifice and I know that most of you did what you did because you believed that what you were doing was the right thing to do. It's one of the things that make me proud of my fellow americans. But when I see the names on The Wall and the tears in my eyes make it impossible to read them, a deep hatred for the men that led you to a war based on lies and profit make me scream, "never again!"

I was resolutely against this war from the beginning, I am against all war, period. That stand doesn't make me a coward, it doesn't mean that I don't love this country.

"War is Hell"
William Tecumseh Sherman

rick said...

I live four hours from the wall. I have been there many more times than I will ever be able to recall. My friends are there.

My college room mate (post Vietnam) was as anti war as a person can be. He was drafted, reported (did not seek sanctuary in Canada) and was made a medic. He spent May 1969 on Hamburger Hill. You can read about it most anywhere. He was unarmed and did what he could to provide medical attention to the wounded and dying. I can't imagine such bravery. Being against war does not make one a coward or alter how much he loves his country. Kudos to you.

I drove from Pennsylvania to Anchorage last May. It would be my great honor to buy you a beer my next time through. I will not be driving it again, though. Driving the Alcan was on my "to do" list and it has been checked off.

Mike of the North said...

RIck, I'd love to take you up on the beer.

In 1998 I came up the alcan in the biggest u-haul they have, towing a 1959 chevy pickup, followed by my wife, a 2 year old girl and a five year old boy, in our 1984 chevy celebrity.

To teach,

I must be insane...