Augustine2004's opinions on Lew Rockwell, Plato, and assorted other subjects

[lilpixieofterror]

I regard the Iraqi ‘government’ as a puppet of the USA federal government. Can you prove otherwise? Nations having elections does not prove anything. The Soviet Union had elections regularly. I still suspect Bush stole both his POTUS elections.

And your evidence would be.... From what it's looking your evidence is 'I don't like Bush, so let me make up things

The upcoming POTUS election is practically meaningless.

In other words...

"I can't find anything, so let me just make up something and run with it."

Unless you have some... any evidence that bush stole any kind of election, you are pretty much lying about people to further your own cause. Are you going to produce evidence or offer an apology for making up things about people that you can't prove?

We are building more than 50 PERMANENT bases in Iraq. The Bush Administration refuses to say that they are permanent, but they sure as hell look permanent to me. If I’m right, so tell me ... what are they for?

Ever been to a base in the Middle East? I have and guess what dear, most of those buildings are trailers or buildings known as 'semi permanent' and many of those bases have a US side and a host nation side. You can take pictures of Al Dhafra AB in the UAE and say, 'HAHA, look the US is building permanent bases!" in reality... those buildings are operated by the UAE Air Force and not the US military, in fact... we can't even go into most of those buildings. I bet the same thing is going on over there too. In fact, let me show you a picture of the largest air base in the Middle East:

postcard-qatar.jpg

Although that picture is written as a joke, that is really what you find in bases over in the Middle East. So if you want to keep speaking out of ignorance, go ahead, but remember... I am a military member and I have been there done that.

The author of this article is a former USAF Lt. Col. One point that she makes is that most of our weapons are impossible to use discriminately and justly. It matters not how careful we are to use them. We must never use them except in rather exceptional situations. http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkows...kowski211.html

Aww, the great source of Lew Rockwell who spreads lies about the Military being a machine of mass murder. Sorry dear but yet again you expose that you don't know what you are talking about. Our guided weapons are very accurate and they have saved thousands of innocent lives. Ever see pictures of Germany after WWII? That is what Iraq would look like if it wasn't for guided weapons. So either this LT Col was misquoted (which I suspect) or she doesn't have a clue what she's talking about.

Have you already forgotten my suggestion of letters of marquee and reprisal combined with rewards and diplomatic negotiations with foreign countries?

And you really think writing people like Saddam and saying "You're a mennie" Is going to change their attitude? Please letters of protest don't always work, you can go ask quite a few countries about that. Did letters of protest stop China from arresting innocent people and throwing them in jail? Not really, they still do it. Did letters of protest stop the slaughter of innocent people in Africa? Nope.Hate to tell you this, but that doesn't always work, sometimes you need to take action.

[Augustine2004]

You’ve been clever at dodging tough questions.

So, you will never accept lewrockwell.com as a repository of evidence. Not too surprising considering how statist or even imperialist you are. I’ve been reading him and his associates for years now, and consider them to be reliable. For example, some of them warned about the big Fannie and Freddie bust-ups. He and some others said the Iraq war would a gigantic boondoggle for the government-military-industrial complex. If you want I can cite other examples.

I don’t know why you would cite a base in UAE and another in Qatar as counters to my arguments, unless they are red herrings. In any case, those buildings still look like they could be around for years. How ‘semi-permanent’ anyway?

There has to be evidence that the Iraqi government is independent of the USA government. Indeed there may be an occasional report of an act by the former that could be cited as an indication of independence. However, in my judgment, considering everything, I still contend that the former is a puppet of the latter. Consider that polls consistently say that the Iraqi people by margins of 3 to 1 want the USA to leave. While the Iraqi government does make some sort of noise about a timetable for it, I think it’s just PR, something to pacify the people. Also consider that the Iraqi government is unpopular. It probably would fall within days after the USA leaves. Also, look at how many warlords there are. A hundred or so. Al Sadr is hardly the only one.

You don’t remember what letters of marquee and reprisal are, do you? Why don’t you google that?

[lilpixieofterror]

You’ve been clever at dodging tough questions.

Whatever you want to say.

So, you will never accept lewrockwell.com as a repository of evidence.

Yep, because it's crap.

Not too surprising considering how statist or even imperialist you are.

Great rebuttal to a word I said, just call anybody you disagree with an imperialist. So Augustine, we are such imperialist, why didn't we take over Europe when we had the chance? Care to explain?

I’ve been reading him and his associates for years now, and consider them to be reliable. For example, some of them warned about the big Fannie and Freddie bust-ups. He and some others said the Iraq war would a gigantic boondoggle for the government-military-industrial complex. If you want I can cite other examples.

Too bad that unlike you, I am actually a member of the military and actually know what is going on. Ever been to the middle East? Nope. Ever see a Middle East base? Nope. Ever lived in a tent? It's not fun and so what is the issue with make more confortable living conditions for the troops in Iraq by building something they can be confortable? I guess you prefer that we slept in tents for 10 or 15 years?

I don’t know why you would cite a base in UAE and another in Qatar as counters to my arguments, unless they are red herrings. In any case, those buildings still look like they could be around for years. How ‘semi-permanent’ anyway?

The UAE and Qatar have some of the biggest bases in the Middle East. Al Udeid AB, Qatar is the largest Air Force base in the Middle East and they only have a few dorms that are permanent structures. Yes, they do look like they can be around for years because we have been there for years. Would you prefer that we all lived and slept in tents? Would that make you happy and help you sleep better at night? Believe it or not, it doesn't take more than a few days to knock down a building and a building can be use for more than military purposes. So just because we are building buildings that actually are not tents, does not mean we are going to be there forever and ever nor does it imply that we are building 50 permanent bases in Iraq, shoot we don't have that many in all of Europe! When this is all said in done, you might find 1 to 5 in Iraq, if they let us stay.

There has to be evidence that the Iraqi government is independent of the USA government. Indeed there may be an occasional report of an act by the former that could be cited as an indication of independence. However, in my judgment, considering everything, I still contend that the former is a puppet of the latter.

So even though the evidence doesn't support your conlcusion, you still think that. Never ever open up to any other conclusion other than 'duh the US is evil!' huh?

Consider that polls consistently say that the Iraqi people by margins of 3 to 1 want the USA to leave.

And I have heard polls that say the opposite. So I guess you prefer we leave Iraq in a state of total chaos. That would make you happy?

While the Iraqi government does make some sort of noise about a timetable for it, I think it’s just PR, something to pacify the people. Also consider that the Iraqi government is unpopular. It probably would fall within days after the USA leaves. Also, look at how many warlords there are. A hundred or so. Al Sadr is hardly the only one.

So in other words, you want the US to leave an unstable country and let it fall to crap and become 10 times worse than it already is. Great plan, perhaps next we can cause the entire world to fall into total chaos? Would that make you happy?

You don’t remember what letters of marquee and reprisal are, do you? Why don’t you google that?

And again, do you really think writing letters of protest and/or cutting of some materals to a country is going to make their leaders step down? We did that to Iraq for how many years and did Saddam ever step down? Nope. We've been doing that to Cuba since my father was a baby and yet... has Castro stepped down? Nope. So can you explain how this is suppose to stop anything?

[Augustine2004]

Great rebuttal to a word I said, just call anybody you disagree with an imperialist. So Augustine, we are such imperialist, why didn't we take over Europe when we had the chance? Care to explain?

We don't have total dominance. However, there is some degree of control. We have bases all over the world. You've been in a base or bases in Germany yourself, correct? Why have bases in Germany anyway, now that the Soviet Union is history? How many bases do we have in Okinawa? Why so many? What is the need? What the hell are we doing in Georgia? Why provoke a powerful nation (Russia)?

Too bad that unlike you, I am actually a member of the military and actually know what is going on.

A mechanic? Pooh.

Ever been to the middle East? Nope. Ever see a Middle East base? Nope.

Ever been to Fallajah after they rained white phosphorous on it? Nope.

Ever lived in a tent?

Yes! So!?

for 10 or 15 years?

At last you concede unwittingly that the structures are indeed permanent.

because we have been there for years.

Why may I not take that as evidence of an intent of imperialism?

Would you prefer that we all lived and slept in tents?

Except for letter-of-marquee-and-reprisial teams trying to capture terrorists or kill them, I would prefer that they sleep here in the USA.

Would that make you happy and help you sleep better at night?

It's rather expensive to maintain armed forces abroad. Cheaper to maintain a defense right on USA soil.

Believe it or not, it doesn't take more than a few days to knock down a building

Why, for god's sake? Of course government is like that.

50 permanent bases in Iraq

How many and what authority can you cite?

When this is all said in done, you might find 1 to 5 in Iraq, if they let us stay.

Babble. Of course they don't want to let us stay, and the permanent look of those bases makes them resistive.

Never ever open up to any other conclusion other than 'duh the US is evil!' huh?

Never ever open up to any other conclusion other than 'duh Cheney and Bush are evil' huh?

And I have heard polls that say the opposite.

What polls? References?

So I guess you prefer we leave Iraq in a state of total chaos. That would make you happy?

What, no chaos there now? Since Petraeus ordered his men to keep our boys and girls out of combat as much as possible, things have become much quieter. I do think things will become better when we leave. Some violence may still occur from time to time, though, like in the USA.

So in other words, you want the US to leave an unstable country and let it fall to crap and become 10 times worse than it already is. Great plan, perhaps next we can cause the entire world to fall into total chaos? Would that make you happy?

Oh, I wish you would come to the small government thread.

And again, do you really think writing letters of protest and/or cutting of some materals to a country is going to make their leaders step down? We did that to Iraq for how many years and did Saddam ever step down? Nope. We've been doing that to Cuba since my father was a baby and yet... has Castro stepped down? Nope. So can you explain how this is suppose to stop anything?

Babble. Your head is a mess. You're a poor reader.

[lilpixieofterror]

We don't have total dominance. However, there is some degree of control. We have bases all over the world. You've been in a base or bases in Germany yourself, correct? Why have bases in Germany anyway, now that the Soviet Union is history? How many bases do we have in Okinawa? Why so many? What is the need? What the hell are we doing in Georgia? Why provoke a powerful nation (Russia)?

Actually, we only have two air bases in Germany. Also, if you haven't noticed it is the over seas bases in places like Germany that give the US the global reach capability. For example jets flying from the Middle East to the US can stop in Germany for re-supply and crew rest before moving on and they are guaranteed protection

A mechanic? Pooh. Ever been to Fallajah after they rained white phosphorous on it? Nope.

Yep, because everybody knows that on a day to day bases, the US military rains down white phosphorous on people. Now do you have any proof of this or did you stop to think... there was a reason for it or do you just do what you do best... mentally throw up something and call it an argument?

Yes! So!? At last you concede unwittingly that the structures are indeed permanent.

99% of those buildings are trailers. Nothing all that permanent about a trailer that is designed to be moved in a few days. Even if the US military is building permit structures, so what? Believe it or not... buildings built by the US military can be used by more than just the US military and indeed do come down a lot eaiser than they went up. So again the argument that "HAHAHAHA the US is building permit buildings in the Iraq so therefore they want to be there forever and ever" is not an argument or proof of anything. We have built plenty of bases and turned them over for civilian use, one example is in my home town where the former air base was turned into an airport. In fact, many airstrips and airports in the US owe their existence to US military bases back during WWII and the 50's.

Why may I not take that as evidence of an intent of imperialism?

Because we have built dozens of permit bases throughout the world that are not being used by the US military and believe it or not... a building/air strip/etc built by the military can be used by more than just the US military. You also seem to forget that we spent 4 years fighting WWII and yet... how many of those countries we were in did we keep bases around? A few, but that is only because either the country let us stay (such as Iceland or Brittan) while others were done by treaty (Japan or Germany), but the vast majority of countries... we did not stay on and gave them their land back and in Iraq... do you have any proof that the US isn't going to turn Iraq back over or is your unreasonable fears of 'imperialism' that you have no proof of all you have?

Except for letter-of-marquee-and-reprisial teams trying to capture terrorists or kill them, I would prefer that they sleep here in the USA. It's rather expensive to maintain armed forces abroad. Cheaper to maintain a defense right on USA soil. Why, for god's sake?

If you haven't noticed almost every war in US history (with the exception of the Civil war) has been with foreign powers. So would you rather fight a war in the US and destroy the country or would you rather take the fight to the enemy and destroy his base of operations? Take a look at all the major wars the US has fought in, only the civil war was fought because of internal struggles within the US (two if you count the Revolution as a rebellion) all the other major wars... were against foreign powers so does it make sense that we want to keep a military presence outside the US. Also, you are forgetting that it is the US isolationist policies that lead to WWII, if we would of been more active in the world, Germany couldn't of built up the strength it had to fight the war in the first place. So as you can see, the historical examples we have of this, ended up in failure. So why would it work now?

Of course government is like that.How many and what authority can you cite?Babble. Of course they don't want to let us stay, and the permanent look of those bases makes them resistive.

Oh please, "Duh, this base looks permanent, so America is imperialist." is an absurd argument that only you would use. Believe it or not... buildings can be used for more than just military uses. Shoot, take a look at major and smaller airports, bet they have a history and may of even been built by the US military at some point in their history. We have old bases all over the world that are being used by other country military's or by civilians.

Never ever open up to any other conclusion other than 'duh Cheney and Bush are evil' huh? What polls? References?What, no chaos there now? Since Petraeus ordered his men to keep our boys and girls out of combat as much as possible, things have become much quieter. I do think things will become better when we leave. Some violence may still occur from time to time, though, like in the USA.

What are you ranting about? I have heard all kind of stats and stats are a wonderful thing, you can make them say pretty much anything you want as long as you know who to ask and/or what to ask.

Oh, I wish you would come to the small government thread.
Babble. Your head is a mess. You're a poor reader.

Of course I'm a poor reader because if I wasn't, I'd agree with Augustine, but since I don't, I must be a poor read. More of your logic I see, now when you have a real argument or some real evidence to present forward, I might take your seriously. For now... I don't nor will I. Thanks for playing, but keep showing you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

[Augustine2004]

Actually, we only have two air bases in Germany. Also, if you haven't noticed it is the over seas bases in places like Germany that give the US the global reach capability. For example jets flying from the Middle East to the US can stop in Germany for re-supply and crew rest before moving on and they are guaranteed protection

For what purpose? Protection against what? More below.

Yep, because everybody knows that on a day to day bases, the US military rains down white phosphorous on people.

Do you not know what white phosphorous is? What it is used for? What is the military need for it? Ah, so you admit that we did rain white phosphorous on Fallajah. Oh, no, I see you’re asking for evidence. Someone said that. Not Lew Rockwell, I don’t think he’s been to Iraq. However, I believe people went there. A picture I saw after they got done with Fallajah. Also, communication between Blair and Bush have been reported in the media. Blair gave Bush advice to hold off on bombing Fallajah until some ‘better’ time, and Bush agreed. Evil! Now, while I got the references from lewrockwell.com, it was reported in some of the media.

99% of those buildings are trailers. Nothing all that permanent about a trailer that is designed to be moved in a few days. Even if the US military is building permit structures, so what? Believe it or not... buildings built by the US military can be used by more than just the US military and indeed do come down a lot eaiser than they went up. So again the argument that "HAHAHAHA the US is building permit buildings in the Iraq so therefore they want to be there forever and ever" is not an argument or proof of anything. We have built plenty of bases and turned them over for civilian use, one example is in my home town where the former air base was turned into an airport. In fact, many airstrips and airports in the US owe their existence to US military bases back during WWII and the 50's.
Because we have built dozens of permit bases throughout the world that are not being used by the US military and believe it or not... a building/air strip/etc built by the military can be used by more than just the US military. You also seem to forget that we spent 4 years fighting WWII and yet... how many of those countries we were in did we keep bases around? A few, but that is only because either the country let us stay (such as Iceland or Brittan) while others were done by treaty (Japan or Germany), but the vast majority of countries... we did not stay on and gave them their land back and in Iraq... do you have any proof that the US isn't going to turn Iraq back over or is your unreasonable fears of 'imperialism' that you have no proof of all you have?

‘Permit’ structures? Anyway, when you build things that are designed to last for years, and trailers ARE designed to last for years, it means you intend to stay there for years. Why stay in Iraq for years? Bear with me while I go through a long chain of argument. First, the war was sold as a cakewalk. Then it was sold as a way to combat terrorism or tyranny. Now what? Al Qaida is as strong as ever if not stronger. Saddam is now gone many months. The USA has slid far into fascism; it’s already imperialist. Most of the violence there is our fault (I will explain that if you want). If we leave now the Iraqi national government will indeed topple in a matter of days if not within a day. So, why do we continue to stay there? The government-military-industry complex likes the money that it’s making off the war. You should look up Bush’s friends and see how wealthy they are. The USA government has become tyrannical. You can’t deny it. I asked you about the MCA. I can ask you about other acts. We are not following the Constitution. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...servatism.html

If you haven't noticed almost every war in US history (with the exception of the Civil war) has been with foreign powers. So would you rather fight a war in the US and destroy the country or would you rather take the fight to the enemy and destroy his base of operations? Take a look at all the major wars the US has fought in, only the civil war was fought because of internal struggles within the US (two if you count the Revolution as a rebellion) all the other major wars... were against foreign powers so does it make sense that we want to keep a military presence outside the US. Also, you are forgetting that it is the US isolationist policies that lead to WWII, if we would of been more active in the world, Germany couldn't of built up the strength it had to fight the war in the first place. So as you can see, the historical examples we have of this, ended up in failure. So why would it work now?

The USA Establishment has been rather bellicose. I already gave a reason above. Why don’t you get this book and try to refute it? http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl...1183749&sr=8-1

Oh please, "Duh, this base looks permanent, so America is imperialist." is an absurd argument that only you would use. Believe it or not... buildings can be used for more than just military uses. Shoot, take a look at major and smaller airports, bet they have a history and may of even been built by the US military at some point in their history. We have old bases all over the world that are being used by other country military's or by civilians.

Try to look at the Iraqi bases as an Iraqi would, if you could ever have any empathy.

What are you ranting about? I have heard all kind of stats and stats are a wonderful thing, you can make them say pretty much anything you want as long as you know who to ask and/or what to ask.

You cited certain polls, and I asked you for documentation. Is that all I'm to get from you? As for the Petraeus thing, have you a better explanation of why things are comparatively quieter there? I can attempt a more detailed explanation of why things were much more violent there since we invaded, if you wish.

If you want to break off our argument, that's fine, perhaps I'm an idiot for arguing with an idiot.

[lilpixieofterror]

For what purpose? Protection against what? More below.

Ever hear of the date of December 7, 1941? What happened that day? Ever hear about this thing that happened 7 years ago? What about Mexicans during the Mexican civil war attacking the US? Believe it or not, we have been attacked before by a foregin power and if you don't think it can happen again, you're being downright naive.

Do you not know what white phosphorous is? What it is used for? What is the military need for it?

I know what it's used for dear, I want you to prove it was used in Fallajah and if it was, why.

Ah, so you admit that we did rain white phosphorous on Fallajah. Oh, no, I see you’re asking for evidence. Someone said that. Not Lew Rockwell, I don’t think he’s been to Iraq.

If Lew Rockwell said the world was round, I'd look that up to see if it was true.

However, I believe people went there. A picture I saw after they got done with Fallajah. Also, communication between Blair and Bush have been reported in the media. Blair gave Bush advice to hold off on bombing Fallajah until some ‘better’ time, and Bush agreed. Evil! Now, while I got the references from lewrockwell.com, it was reported in some of the media.

You do know that flares can in fact be be mistaken for white phosphorous, right? You are also aware that it does work and that it is legal, right? Now again, I ask you... was it used and if it was... why? Going to answer my questions yet or just rant some more?

‘Permit’ structures? Anyway, when you build things that are designed to last for years, and trailers ARE designed to last for years, it means you intend to stay there for years.

And again, trailers can be moved very quickly, I have watched them be moved and it only takes about one week to move them and have them set up and ready to go elsewhere. So, what do you want us to do about offices and places to live and sleep? We can't set up tents because we have to put concrete pads that can last for years and years. So let us dig holes out in the sand and sleep in sleeping bags so Augustine can be re-assured that we are not 'imperialist'. I guess you want us sleeping in the sand so you can feel better at night, huh? Do you have a better way to set up places to work and sleep that is safe, efficient, and makes maximum use out of space? I can't think of any, can you?

Why stay in Iraq for years?

Because if you haven't noticed, it's not stable yet and it's not going to be stable for years still.

Bear with me while I go through a long chain of argument. First, the war was sold as a cakewalk.

I remember people saying when I first joined in 2004 it wasn't going to be a cake walk.

Then it was sold as a way to combat terrorism or tyranny. Now what? Al Qaida is as strong as ever if not stronger.

No, they are not at all, in fact they are doing very bad and loosing a lot of men and resources everyday. In every major battle, they get the snot beat out of them and in reality... Al Qaida isn't doing well military wise. There is a reason they are resorting to terrorizing the population of Iraq... that is because every time they try a military operation, they get a very bloody nose.

Saddam is now gone many months. The USA has slid far into fascism; it’s already imperialist.

Yep, more of the same assertions without evidence. The US is fascist eh? BUSH IS AN IDIOT!!! So when shall the FBI be knocking down my door to take me off to a re-education camp sometime today? The US is imperialist, that's funny... since we have given back every country we've invaded for the past century. Anymore stupid assertions without evidence you care to make? Yep, it seems you are not done embarrassing yourself yet.

Most of the violence there is our fault (I will explain that if you want).

Yep, because everybody knows that US soldiers run into crowded marketplaces and blow themselves up. Oh wait... that is the insurgents doing that! Of course, in your little world everything is the US' fault, huh?

If we leave now the Iraqi national government will indeed topple in a matter of days if not within a day. So, why do we continue to stay there?

So you are saying we let the government fall and become 10 times worse than it already is. Great idea! Maybe next we can manage to start WWIII or we can go into other countries and make it so that they are unstable too. Great idea! Got anymore for us?

The government-military-industry complex likes the money that it’s making off the war.

Right... because everybody knows that everything is Bush's fault and that he somehow wants a war that kills millions so his buddies can get richer. Do you have any evidence for these claims?

You should look up Bush’s friends and see how wealthy they are.

Were they wealthy before the war?

The USA government has become tyrannical. You can’t deny it. I asked you about the MCA. I can ask you about other acts. We are not following the Constitution. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...servatism.html

More of Lew Rockwells assertions and ranting eh? Anything and everything to believe what you want, huh? The US is tyrants, that's funny, let me see how that theory works

BUSH IS AN IDIOT!!!!

So when should I expect the CIA to bust down my door and hall me away?

The USA Establishment has been rather bellicose. I already gave a reason above. Why don’t you get this book and try to refute it? http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl...1183749&sr=8-1

Yep, another source by a guy with an extreme case of paranoia and downright stupidity. Maybe you should try a real history class and actually learn how things really went instead of listening to some nut job. What actually caused WWII was a set of circumstances set about by the previous prime minister of England and not Churchill. What should of happened is that the second that Germany decided to play rough and break their treaty, France and Brittan should of gone and wiped the floor with them. Instead, they tried to appease Germany and as you can see, it didn't work. So yes, Patrick J. Buchanan right along with Lew Rockwell have an extreme case of paranoia and feed off the fears of others.

Try to look at the Iraqi bases as an Iraqi would, if you could ever have any empathy.

Americans need places to sleep and work too. If I was an Iraqi, should I seriously expect them to sleep in the sand to make me happy? No, that's stupid and so is your whole argument.

You cited certain polls, and I asked you for documentation. Is that all I'm to get from you? As for the Petraeus thing, have you a better explanation of why things are comparatively quieter there? .

You just found a stat you liked and ran with it, there are stats everywhere that say things and even stats are and can be wrong. If you want an example from history... try the Truman vs Dewy election. Also, you know how they come up with these stats? They ask about a thousand people what they think and they post it as '2 out of 3 Iraqi's want America out' and make it seem that is common census, when it's not. I bet I could go over there and make it seem that '1 out of 3 Iraqi's want the US out'. It's not very hard and I did something like that in high school. All you need to do is ask the right people the right questions, that's it.

I can attempt a more detailed explanation of why things were much more violent there since we invaded, if you wish.

Really? Did you watch a video of Saddam when he first became president? He took members of the Iraqi government and had them killed outside. In fact, we have discovered mass graves all over the country and still find them. Also, Saddam gassed tens of thousands of Kurds up in Northern Iraq. This is just a small example of the brutality that Saddam released upon Iraq. Go ahead, makes those claims, but each time we find another mass grave or another documented video of one of Saddam's goons beating and torturing people, you can keep telling me that.

If you want to break off our argument, that's fine, perhaps I'm an idiot for arguing with an idiot.

If you actually knew what you were talking about instead of dumb arguments and just believing what people tell you, you wouldn't be an idiot, but you do believe whatever your precious Lew Rockwell tells you. Go ahead, call me an idiot, but coming from the same person who somehow thinks that any type of structure we build in Iraq is proof of Imperialism, that really doesn't bug me in the least.

[Augustine2004]

Is there anything you can do to discredit Tom Engelhardt’s article other than saying it’s just another Lew Rockwell article? http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhard...lhardt354.html Note that Tom claims that parts of what he said made the NY Times front page.

As for Al Qaida getting the snot knocked out of it, that's been true for years and years now.

We are losing Kabul. Eventually Afghanistan.

Note that part of a politician's SOP is never ever admit wrongdoing. That means putting a happy face on impeding defeat. You're naive, dearie.

[lilpixieofterror]

Is there anything you can do to discredit Tom Engelhardt’s article other than saying it’s just another Lew Rockwell article? http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhard...lhardt354.html Note that Tom claims that parts of what he said made the NY Times front page.

Like I said, after seeing other of Lew Rockwell's articles where I know for a fact he is either stretching the truth or downright lying, I see no reason to believe him. Tom can claim that all he wants, does he have any proof that anything he said made the NYT or that it should be taken seriously?

As for Al Qaida getting the snot knocked out of it, that's been true for years and years now.

We are losing Kabul. Eventually Afghanistan.

That isn't what I hear from the troops on the front line. Military wise, the US is winning every major battle and Al Qaida isn't. That isn't loosing dear, in fact Al Qaida is so desperate, they are kidnapping people and torturing and eventually kill them. That isn't what organizations do when they are winning, they only do things like that when they are loosing and loosing badly.

Note that part of a politician's SOP is never ever admit wrongdoing. That means putting a happy face on impeding defeat. You're naive, dearie.

And again, are you a member of the US armed forces? Nope. Are you aware that we have won ever major battle in this war and Al Qaida is getting so desperate they are kidnapping people and using such tactics as hooking up bombs to mentally handicapped men and women so they can blow them up in a market place? That is the sign of a desperate enemy who knows they can't win the war or fight head to head, so they need to resort to terror tactics to attempt to win. Keep believing whatever Lew Rockwell tells you, but too bad that I have caught him either lying or spreading dishonesty before, huh? Sorry, but that shows me his credibility is lacking and in some cases, laughable and thus should not be taken seriously until he admits to his errors.

[Faramir]

I am not admitting or denying anything about the possibility of the railroads getting their act together--it is impossible to know whether or not they would have done so. I am saying that at the time the government stepped in, they weren't--and the government wasn't willing to wait any longer.

Especially when the government was in a very serious civil war.

[Augustine2004]

You don't understand 4G war, all right. We never lost a major battle in Vietnam, so we couldn't have possibly lost the war there.

It's not al Qaida in Afghanistan. It's the Taliban.

No doubt al Qaida is pretty evil. It's a terrorist organization, after all. I predict its snot will get knocked out of it for years to come until the time finally comes, at long last, to pull the plug, like we did in Vietnam.


You and I are opposites on the question of the USA federal government’s reliability and veracity. You think we should rely on it. You think it usually tells the truth. On the other hand, I think we should expect it will do more bad than good. I think we should always consider the opposite of what it claims. For example if it claims that we are succeeding in Afghanistan, then we should consider that we are on the contrary failing there. Indeed, I’ve seen at least 2 reports that the Taliban is winning.

You refuse to come to the small government and the public goods threads. I don’t understand why, unless it’s some psychological problem. You have an opportunity to go to the basics and finally refute me thoroughly, if you can. I am not going to reproduce the contents of those threads here. The moderators apparently don’t like such actions, for one thing. If you want a summary, I’ve already given one: We should expect that our governments will do more bad than good.

I think what's happening now is that the Mideast wars are already lost. Bush is fighting on not because he still has an insane hope of winning, but he hates to admit defeat or dares not to. He's going to try to dump everything on the next President.


ETA One thing we have to do is to win the hearts and minds of the people. We are not doing so. All I can think of is to simply leave and let the people run their own lives as they see fit.

[lilpixieofterror]

You don't understand 4G war, all right. We never lost a major battle in Vietnam, so we couldn't have possibly lost the war there.

The reason the war was lost in Vietnam was not because of military actions, the North Vietnam Army was in shambles and the Vietcong were loosing too. Actually, one of the POW's reported that a north Vietnam official said that the war was not going to be won on the battle field, but on the streets of US major cities by all the political protesting. That is why we lost Vietnam, not because of any military action, we were winning and we had them on the run, it was because people were protesting in the streets and Washington decided to appease them to win votes.

It's not al Qaida in Afghanistan. It's the Taliban.

And the Taliban is backed by Al Quaida dear and they are loosing. Military wise we wouldn't loose this war, the problem is the same you see in the 1970's, the war is being won though propaganda and people like Lew Rockwell are the ones spreading roomers around such as the US armed forces are murders, when it's simply not true.

No doubt al Qaida is pretty evil. It's a terrorist organization, after all. I predict its snot will get knocked out of it for years to come until the time finally comes, at long last, to pull the plug, like we did in Vietnam.

Yep, and that is what they are looking for. They are not looking to win this war though military battles and actions, they know they can't win that way, the record keeps showing they get the snot beat out of them every time they try. Instead they want to win the battle in America in terms of Public opinion.

You and I are opposites on the question of the USA federal government’s reliability and veracity. You think we should rely on it. You think it usually tells the truth.

I do agree that it sometimes lie, but here is the thing. I know Lew Rockwell is either a liar or downright dishonest. US troops are not told to kill just to kill, they are told to only engage when required and to only use the minimum force required to win the battle and the war. He continues to misreport things or distort the truth in the hopes to fool those who don't know any better. I know better, that is why I don't trust him and his type.

On the other hand, I think we should expect it will do more bad than good. I think we should always consider the opposite of what it claims. For example if it claims that we are succeeding in Afghanistan, then we should consider that we are on the contrary failing there. Indeed, I’ve seen at least 2 reports that the Taliban is winning.

And I'm guessing these reports come from Lew Rockwell, right? Sorry dear, but the Taliban isn't doing very well at all, there is a reason they are resorting to kidnappings and hit and run attacks, they know they can't win in a head to head battle and every time they try, they end up limping away with a blood nose. I'll tell you right now, this war isn't going to be won or lost on the battle field, it will be won or lost in Washington DC with the decisions of our leaders.

You refuse to come to the small government and the public goods threads.

Because I'm not jumping thread to thread and this discussion has zero to do with a small or big government. The Military is in the US constitution and there is nothing unconstitutional about it, the US Armed Forces is older than the US Federal Government, so what does military actions have to do with a big or small government?

I don’t understand why, unless it’s some psychological problem. You have an opportunity to go to the basics and finally refute me thoroughly, if you can. I am not going to reproduce the contents of those threads here. The moderators apparently don’t like such actions, for one thing. If you want a summary, I’ve already given one: We should expect that our governments will do more bad than good.

And your proof that they do more bad is what? Nothing, you have zero proof of such actions and you can't back it up. BUSH IS AN IDIOT! So am I going to be taken away to a re-education camp yet? Maybe I should call more people idiots and perhaps e mail the federal government and tell them I think Bush is an idiot? Maybe I can get set away there? I'm still waiting for some facts.... and you still have nothing, zero, zip to back up your nonsense.

I think what's happening now is that the Mideast wars are already lost. Bush is fighting on not because he still has an insane hope of winning, but he hates to admit defeat or dares not to. He's going to try to dump everything on the next President.

Nope, the war will be lost not because of what is going on on the battle field, but what is going on in Washington DC and what president made the promises to the public (to get into office) to bring the troops home over being stability to these countries. It's not going to be a short process and it is going to take years and years. We have lost less troops since 2001 than we did in just one year on Vietnam. That is saying that this war isn't Vietnam, but it will be decided in a very similar way.... in Washington DC.

ETA One thing we have to do is to win the hearts and minds of the people. We are not doing so. All I can think of is to simply leave and let the people run their own lives as they see fit.

Oh yeah, that will do wonders! Why don't we just invite a few war lords in and let them take over for us when we leave because that is what is going to happen. The fact is, you either leave now and leave a country that will be so unstable, that it will fall into civil war with thousands, even millions dying or you do stay to the end and finish the job. So what action would be the better of the two?

[Augustine2004]

The reason the war was lost in Vietnam was not because of military actions, the North Vietnam Army was in shambles and the Vietcong were loosing too. Actually, one of the POW's reported that a north Vietnam official said that the war was not going to be won on the battle field, but on the streets of US major cities by all the political protesting. That is why we lost Vietnam, not because of any military action, we were winning and we had them on the run, it was because people were protesting in the streets and Washington decided to appease them to win votes.

I’m appalled by your tyranny. Democracy ought to mean that the government serves the people, not the other way around. Of course, maybe the people are not wise. So, you want the government to be wise and go against public opinion when it is not wise.

There are many problems with that argument. We want government to have at least some respect for the desires of the people. However, ‘public opinion’ is often all over the map. How do we determine a consensus? Polls are not always reliable.

Second, history shows repeatedly that government acts in the interest of the Establishment (the ruling class). Austrian School theory also says that. Our representatives in the government make decisions that favor themselves or their clients such as Big Business, especially the government-military-industry complex. The government is supposed to serve the ‘greater good,’ whatever that may be, but that does not seem to be so in practice.

Third, how do stupid people recognize wise people anyway? Is Sarah Palin a wise woman? How do we know until local people have observed her life for years?

In countries where there is no elections - there’s a king or dictator, e.g. - ruthless people, not necessarily wise ones, get to rule. They are power-hungry and want ever more power. Actually, that’s true of the USA federal government also.

Let’s say you’re right, the Viet Cong was gone and the NVA was a wreck when Kissinger negotiated a peace treaty in 1973. Nixon had been elected perhaps because he promised peace with honor in 1968. We withdrew after the Paris Peace Accords had been signed. With amazing speed, the NV reconstituted its army and was able to conquer the SV. Or maybe this is what the people of the SV wanted all along. Or they just didn’t care. (I really do think they hated the American-imposed government anyway.)

As a result, we are having to learn how to speak Russian, study Russian history, study Marxist theory, and cope with a dysfunctional economy.

Suppose we did stay the course. Nixon despite his campaign promise stayed the course for 4 years. The USA people didn’t like the results. Many thought that the war was becoming immoral and unnecessary. You need to show that such opinions were wrong. Have you no idea how many SV people were injured or lost their lives at all (hint: collateral damage)?

Oh, never mind how many SV people lost their lives. Hell, let’s destroy the country in order to save the world from evil communism. Possible?

Not necessarily. The American style of war was and is extremely expensive, mainly because this is what the government-military-industry complex prefers. You may have heard, “Old generals fight the last war.” That is not applicable. It’s just the economics of the situation. The ruling class of the USA likes the money and the power that a creating and maintaining a gigantic and powerful military brings to it. The NV on the other hand opted for a low-cost style of war-making that it could sustain for perhaps decades. Had we stayed the course right to the bitter end, our economy might have gone down the tubes. Actually it seems to be happening now. Either that or something has got to give away.

And the Taliban is backed by Al Quaida dear and they are loosing.

Maybe??? Al Qaida has only about 300 or so people, so I hardly care about the backing anyway.

Military wise we wouldn't loose this war, the problem is the same you see in the 1970's, the war is being won though propaganda

How so, the fact that the Taliban are slowly winning is not common knowledge.

and people like Lew Rockwell are the ones spreading roomers around such as the US armed forces are murders, when it's simply not true.

You misrepresent what Rockwell said. Pay attention, please. When you start an American-style occupation of a country like Iraq, many civilian deaths must be expected. What are the justification for them? If they cannot be justified, they have to be counted as murders. What are your justification? I’m not accusing the majority of the USA armed forces of being murderers. They just haven’t thought things through yet. I do consider Cheney and Bush to be murderers. They deserve to be shot.

Yep, and that is what they are looking for. They are not looking to win this war though military battles and actions, they know they can't win that way, the record keeps showing they get the snot beat out of them every time they try. Instead they want to win the battle in America in terms of Public opinion.

No, that’s not all they are trying to achieve. As explained above, they are also trying to bring our economy down. Osama bin Laden himself made the point that for every dollar that al Qaida spends, the USA spends a million dollars.

I do agree that it sometimes lie, but here is the thing. I know Lew Rockwell is either a liar or downright dishonest. US troops are not told to kill just to kill, they are told to only engage when required and to only use the minimum force required to win the battle and the war. He continues to misreport things or distort the truth in the hopes to fool those who don't know any better. I know better, that is why I don't trust him and his type.

You’re not being ethical. Downright unChristian in fact.

And I'm guessing these reports come from Lew Rockwell, right? Sorry dear, but the Taliban isn't doing very well at all, there is a reason they are resorting to kidnappings and hit and run attacks, they know they can't win in a head to head battle and every time they try, they end up limping away with a blood nose. I'll tell you right now, this war isn't going to be won or lost on the battle field, it will be won or lost in Washington DC with the decisions of our leaders.



Because I'm not jumping thread to thread and this discussion has zero to do with a small or big government. The Military is in the US constitution and there is nothing unconstitutional about it, the US Armed Forces is older than the US Federal Government, so what does military actions have to do with a big or small government?

Again, you’re not being Christian.

And your proof that they do more bad is what? Nothing, you have zero proof of such actions and you can't back it up. BUSH IS AN IDIOT! So am I going to be taken away to a re-education camp yet? Maybe I should call more people idiots and perhaps e mail the federal government and tell them I think Bush is an idiot? Maybe I can get set away there? I'm still waiting for some facts.... and you still have nothing, zero, zip to back up your nonsense.

As to not being sent to some ‘re-education’ camp yet, that’s because the American people still hold freedom of speech in high regard. For example, the government hates Lew Rockwell - at least that is what Bruce Blumert says - but have not acted against him yet because of that high regard. The government wants to be all-powerful, but fears overprovoking the people. The American Revolution did occur and another may yet eventuate. I urge you to study the Military Commissions Act and the commentary on it.

Nope, the war will be lost not because of what is going on on the battle field, but what is going on in Washington DC and what president made the promises to the public (to get into office) to bring the troops home over being stability to these countries. It's not going to be a short process and it is going to take years and years. We have lost less troops since 2001 than we did in just one year on Vietnam. That is saying that this war isn't Vietnam, but it will be decided in a very similar way.... in Washington DC.



Oh yeah, that will do wonders! Why don't we just invite a few war lords in and let them take over for us when we leave because that is what is going to happen. The fact is, you either leave now and leave a country that will be so unstable, that it will fall into civil war with thousands, even millions dying or you do stay to the end and finish the job. So what action would be the better of the two?

A million people have already died. Most lives are blighted. 3 million refugees. (I don’t know the number of refugees now, but that was an estimate months ago.) I don’t see why you think withdrawing now would make things worse. Have you really sat down and tried to work things out? If so, show us your computations, please.

[Augustine2004]

And the Taliban is backed by Al Quaida dear and they are loosing. Military wise we wouldn't loose this war, the problem is the same you see in the 1970's, the war is being won though propaganda and people like Lew Rockwell are the ones spreading roomers around such as the US armed forces are murders, when it's simply not true.

I know you're still posting in TWeb. Why no reply from you so far? Have I really bloodied your nose and you have limped off (figuratively speaking)? Your snot not being where you are now?

Let me add something to my reply to that quote. alQaida is not a tightly-knit organization with a more-or-less stable membership. It's more like a swarm of bees. Moreover, bees drop out and others join in, but for only a while. May seem rather chaotic. So much so that someone posting today on the lewrockwell.com blog used the words, "the al Qaida Myth," something like that.

[Augustine2004]

A plea on Christian grounds by a ‘burnt-out’ veteran of many wars, including Vietnam, to say no to more wars. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/goff2.html If LpoTerror disagrees with any part of the plea, please explain why.