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

[lilpixieofterror]

Is this typical of how you disagree with things, eh?

Back up your claims, got one.

I took the highest estimate that I could find. If you know REALLY KNOW the amount of exaggeration, we can arrive at a number we know REALLY KNOW to be accurate. However, I don't think you really know. You probably don't know that most deaths in Iraq and probably also in Afghanistan go undocumented because of the nature of the societies there and of war. So, if we have 100,000 documented deaths, but 5 or 10 deaths are undocumented for every documented deaths, then we have 600,000 to `1100,000 deaths.

So we just make up numbers on the spot to make our argument seem more valid.

I'm puzzled why you couldn't find the refugee numbers. Those are UN numbers for god's sake! Try again.

Really? Funny I read their web site a few months ago and didn't see it anywhere. Source please.

My god, have you no inkling that we're carrying out military operations in Iran right now? I didn't say Iraq. I said IraN.

Do you have any proof we do?

What has the media been saying? For the most part it supports the war, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, whatever.

Good point, I overstated things. However, prosperity requires peace.

Yeah, whatever this comes from.

To be sure, it's not all our fault. What you say is true to some extent. However, again, prosperity requires peace.

Ever read about the extent of terror that Saddam and the Taliban brought the people of their respective nations? We're still finding mass graves over 5 years after the invasion.

How can you say that, within years they were able to conquer South V, though they had weapons we left them. True, we did have a huge edge in firepower. You still don't understand 4G war. Wars must be won quickly and fairly cleanly.

Wars of this nature (like this war and Vietnam) are not going to fast, quick, or can be precisely planned. This war is fought in battles spread out by an enemy that will not come out and fight in a full battle because they know they can't win. So what they do is small attacks in which they hit and run away before their forces can be destroyed. What you fail to understand is this enemy knows that a head to head battle is something they would quickly loose at, so instead they do hit and run missions so that we can't bring our massive fire power to bear upon them. That is the idea and it seems the America people don't understand that.

Otherwise, it's just not worth the tremendous financial stress, the psychological stress, the medical problems (PTSD, etc.) and other problems (poverty, etc.). Why the heck do you think the financial markets are collapsing? Just for the fun of it?

The financial markets collapsing has zero to do with the war and has to do with lenders giving out loans to people who couldn't pay for them. The war has given people jobs who wouldn't have jobs and if you look at the numbers of those KIA, MIA, WIA, etc you'll discover that more people died in one year in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII than have died in the 7 years this one has gone on. So yet again it seems you just don't understand how this war is being fought and how it will be won. These groups know the US doesn't like a long drawn out war, so that is what their goals are... draw out it to the point where the US backs out.

1. To capture or kill terrorists. That’s a goal that even I can applaud. However, we have to do that so that it does not create more terrorists. It’s the very height of folly if we kill 10,000 terrorists but there are the same number of terrorists at the end of the day as, or 5,000 more than, the beginning of the day. If there were 300 terrorists in the morning, we kill 200 of them but in the process create 400 more, then at the end of the day terrorists number 500. Progress, ha!

Isn't it amazing that groups grow over time? Gosh... what is next... the US is going to grow in population by 2010?

2. To create democratic societies in the Mideast. Probably if you were asked, “What is democracy?” you’d say something like, “Any sort of government whereby the people rule themselves.” Well, phooey. Look at the actual results. What nation does not have a ruling class and a ruled class? That includes the United States. Look at the polls: Most people don’t want the wars. Yet we continue to fight. Why? The ruler class want the wars. They’re getting filthy rich from them. They have power.

Most Americans are stupid and have quickly forgot what happened 7 years ago it appears. Also, polls can be made to say anything you want, if you know who to ask and what to ask (after all, in 1948 the polls said that Dewy was going to win against Truman). Rich people are getting richer? Yep, that must be why the US economy is slowing down and many of these rich boys are finding themselves in hot water. More nosense i see.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t want democracy. They sought to create a constitutional republic.

Democracy in our modern sense means a republic.

Note the emphasis. Nobody was to rule. They failed, abysmally, unfortunately. The only thing that would work is, the people desire the ideal of Liberty and Justice for All and are willing to do whatever is necessary to bring us ever closer to it. The Maybury precepts would be good ones for everybody to practice.

I've never been in jail or arrested for doing something that the government doesn't like. But whatever you'd like to tell yourself.

People in the Mideast have been getting ‘democracy’ stuffed down their throats for decades now and are choking on it. So, what you would call terrorists are in reality freedom fighters - people who are trying to get rid of us democrats.

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. The same can be said for anybody fighting for a cause. Robert E Lee is seen as a terrorist by the North, but in the south to this day he is seen as a hero. This is just one example of many.

3. To prevent things from going to hell in the Mideast. What a load of poppycock. Sure, Iraq and Iran fought a bloody war, but the USA was an active instigator. Later we changed policy and went after the Taliban and Saddam, probably because the ruling class wanted war. A part of the ruling class, the neocons, probably also thought they could remake the world by force of arms.

The USSR gave away plenty of weapons themselves and most of the weapons being used against the US today do not say 'made in USA' they say, 'made in USSR'. I do love your fear mongering about 'the ruling class' in the US. That is pretty rich.

We raised bloody hell there, and are continuing to do so. Today, Afghanistan and Iraq are wrecks of nations.

They were wrecks of nations in the 1950's as well. Saddam sent Iraq into a hole and Afghanistan has been the playground of superpowers for centuries. Thanks for blaming the US on things it didn't do.

I do concede it’s reasonable to assume that sectarian or intramural war will continue or even escalate if we withdraw. OK. However, by withdrawing all our forces from the overseas bases, we can save God Almighty bucks. We can even pay the warring parties in the Mideast to make peace. Why not? We’re already paying the Sunni not to attack our boys and girls, and it seems to be working so far.

Might want to read up on what happened last time we tried that idea. It lead to this little thing known as WWII.

4. To grab the oil for the world’s benefit. I don’t know about you but I certainly don’t support that goal. It’s better stated, “To shed Muslim blood for the oil.”

Last I checked, gas prices were still over 2.50 all over the US. Please show that the US has got one drop of oil from Iraq as a result of this war.

5. To create better societies. What a load of ******. I’m not going to say any more.

Right. I guess you are unaware of the history of these nations.

6. Anything else?

I think you are quite done showing us that you haven't got the slightest clue how things work and how things are going over there. Any other silly thing you like to add?

[Augustine2004]

So we just make up numbers on the spot to make our argument seem more valid.

The organization that supplies the estimate claims that it derives that from surveys of households.

Really? Funny I read their web site a few months ago and didn't see it anywhere. Source please.

Don't you know how to use Google? This is not the refugee estimate but where I got the million deaths http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

This is more than a year ago. If you want a more recent estimate, I'll go look, but I doubt things have changed much. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6339835.stm

Do you have any proof we do?

Who does, Miss "I'm in the military, you're not"?


What, if any, TV news have you been watching?

Yeah, whatever this comes from.

I'm not sure what you're saying? From aggression, particularly an aggressive foreign policy, comes prosperity? Is that what you're thinking?

Ever read about the extent of terror that Saddam and the Taliban brought the people of their respective nations? We're still finding mass graves over 5 years after the invasion.

That would be in Iraq? Whatever, I do admit Saddam and the Taliban are not nice guys. Cheney and Bush aren't either. It's been suggested that some of the 'terror' in the Mideast were CIA operations or the results of them. I don't have as you put it 'proof', by which I think you really mean evidence of an arbitrarily high standard that is impossible to meet.

Wars of this nature (like this war and Vietnam) are not going to fast, quick, or can be precisely planned. This war is fought in battles spread out by an enemy that will not come out and fight in a full battle because they know they can't win. So what they do is small attacks in which they hit and run away before their forces can be destroyed. What you fail to understand is this enemy knows that a head to head battle is something they would quickly loose at, so instead they do hit and run missions so that we can't bring our massive fire power to bear upon them. That is the idea and it seems the America people don't understand that.

Except for the last sentence, you do seem to have some glimmering of what 4G war is. One problem is that we do bear our firepower on something all too often. Too indiscriminately and injudicously. We can't expect our boys and girls to just stand there and take fire. The best thing is to just withdraw, and let the people have at each other.

The financial markets collapsing has zero to do with the war and has to do with lenders giving out loans to people who couldn't pay for them.

You simply have no idea how hugely expensive the wars have been and are.

The war has given people jobs who wouldn't have jobs

What would happen if there were no wars? A huge jobless problem. Boy, you sure need an economics education.

and if you look at the numbers of those KIA, MIA, WIA, etc you'll discover that more people died in one year in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII than have died in the 7 years this one has gone on. So yet again it seems you just don't understand how this war is being fought and how it will be won. These groups know the US doesn't like a long drawn out war, so that is what their goals are... draw out it to the point where the US backs out.

Once again those Muslim civilians don't count. if 23 million people die there, and all of them are Iraqi and Afghani, what's that to us? You've stated the goals quite accurately. So, what's the point? 100 years from now? 1,000 years from now? We're entering a Great Depression now, I'm afraid, partly as a result of the war. Sigh.

Isn't it amazing that groups grow over time? Gosh... what is next... the US is going to grow in population by 2010?

You seem not to understand what I wrote. First, do you agree we are there to kill terrorists?

Most Americans are stupid and have quickly forgot what happened 7 years ago it appears.

What a stupid statement, unless you were joking. If you were joking, I'm not amused.

Rich people are getting richer? Yep, that must be why the US economy is slowing down and many of these rich boys are finding themselves in hot water.

How is that responsive to my charge that many people in the ruling class are war profiteers?

Democracy in our modern sense means a republic.

Well that's not how the Founding Fathers viewed things, AFAICS. If you're not interested in what their thinking is, say so.

I've never been in jail or arrested for doing something that the government doesn't like. But whatever you'd like to tell yourself.

Blah, blah, blah. 3 repetitions.

They were wrecks of nations in the 1950's as well. Saddam sent Iraq into a hole and Afghanistan has been the playground of superpowers for centuries. Thanks for blaming the US on things it didn't do.

Are you denying that our foreign policy has been rather aggressive? Imperialist, even?

Might want to read up on what happened last time we tried that idea. It lead to this little thing known as WWII.

Huh? You mean the charge of appeasement? YOU read Patrick J Buchanan's book The Unnecessary War. He points out that by the time Chamberlain flew to Munich, British was hardly ready to take on Germany. Precious few fighters, for example.

Last I checked, gas prices were still over 2.50 all over the US. Please show that the US has got one drop of oil from Iraq as a result of this war.

You need to pay more attention to the news. Didn't our august leaders talk about using revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil to pay for things?

Right. I guess you are unaware of the history of these nations.

It takes a moral people to create a good society. We Americans are not moral. Too socialist and too imperialist. In fact I'd say the majority of Iraqi is more moral than the majority of Americans. You are just pfft!

[Augustine2004]

Is it true, that Taliban attacks are beginning on the port of Karachi? That Karzai offered an olive branch to the Taliban? NATO’s secretary general NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer admitted the war could only be ended by negotiations, not military means?

“The US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are essentially pipeline protection troops fighting off the hostile natives.

“Both Barack Obama and John McCain are wrong about Afghanistan. It is not a "good" fight against "terrorism," but a classic, 19th-century colonial war to advance western geopolitical power into resource-rich Central Asia. The Pashtun Afghans who live there are ready to fight for another 100 years. The western powers certainly are not.

“As that great American founding father Benjamin Franklin said, ‘there is no good war, and no bad peace.’ Time for the West to face reality in Afghanistan.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis125.html

[Augustine2004]

Lpo Terror pooh-poohed my assertion that the MSN is by and large a conduit for government propaganda. Here’s an example that she may be able to check out: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023527.html

I’d be quite interested in her thoughts about this op-ed: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023528.html I think this title would be more correct: “The Strafing of San Francisco.”

[Augustine2004]

I’m quite curious what LPO Terror’s feelings would be if she read the following all the way to actually viewing the clip from “All Quiet on the Western Front” to the bitter end.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023539.html

[Augustine2004]

Some time ago LPO Terror brought up railroads in an effort to bolster her case. Unfortunately for her, the railroad boom is similar to the housing boom, whose bust is a major factor in our current financial difficulty.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff231.html

[Augustine2004]

IIRC, LPO Terror said something to the effect that the sub prime mess is partly because of people who should not have taken loans in the first place. That’s true, but how ever did they manage to get those in the first place? Did they go into banks with guns and force the bank officials to grant loans? Nay, nay, my little girl. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023574.html

[Augustine2004]

Possibly another guy for LPO Terror to emulate. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023593.html Note: the article cites the NY Times, so it’s not all Lew Rockwell. If LPOT wants to dispute the facts of the case, she will have to dispute the NY Times.


ETA: More noise, more risk of loss of life or limb: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023598.html

[lilpixieofterror]

Sorry Augustine, like I said I'm not going to read anymore stupid articles by that liar known as Lew Rockwell. When you can show me a reliable news source written by reliable people, I'll follow it for now I find your ranting a waste of my time and not worth the effort.

[Augustine2004]

NY Times also a lying thing?

yet more noise and risk of loss of life or limb - a report by a woman, not Lew Rockwell. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023603.html


ETA: Please provide documents of the worst lies that Lew Rockwell have made.

[lilpixieofterror]

Sorry Augustine, you must link to the original article (aka, not Lew Rockwell). Like I said, I'm not following that liar known as Lew Rockwell when I caught him in a lie over the military. Sorry, but the military is not taught to murder people and when he claimed we were, he was lying. When are you going to understand that and stop letting him lie to you and actually let the military tell you want we do?

[Augustine2004]

Sorry Augustine, you must link to the original article (aka, not Lew Rockwell). Like I said, I'm not following that liar known as Lew Rockwell when I caught him in a lie over the military. Sorry, but the military is not taught to murder people and when he claimed we were, he was lying. When are you going to understand that and stop letting him lie to you and actually let the military tell you want we do?

Wow what a beauty of misunderstanding and poor reading! It was I - NOT Lew Rockwell - who argued that if a POTUS orders the armed forces particularly the Air Force to attack a weak nation using the current American style of warfare and numerous civilian losses resulted ('collateral damage') and drags that war on for years resulting yet more civilian deaths, then the POTUS must be judged guilty of murder. He surely must know what is going on. You've said he's an idiot, but I think he does know what's going on. He's evil.

Possibly another guy for LPO Terror to emulate. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023593.html Note: the article cites the NY Times, so it’s not all Lew Rockwell. If LPOT wants to dispute the facts of the case, she will have to dispute the NY Times.


William S. Lind says that al Qaida in Iraq may be failing partly because of its ‘Puritanism,’ which puts off the locals. However, he says, that does not mean 4GW models cannot succeed. He cited Hezbollah and the Latin American drug gangs as successful models. http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind151.html Note, LPO Terror, he cited Tom Rick of the Washington Post.


This can’t be a lie yet because it’s a prediction of sorts. Let’s see if it comes about.

Seven years later, according to an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate, Afghanistan is on a "downward spiral"; the drug trade flourishes as never before; the government of President Hamid Karzai is notoriously corrupt, deeply despised, and incapable of exercising control much beyond the capital; American and NATO troops, thanks largely to a reliance upon air power and soaring civilian deaths, are increasingly unpopular; the Taliban is resurgent and has established a shadow government across much of the south, while its guerrillas are embedded at the gates of Kabul. American and NATO forces promoted a "surge" strategy in 2007 that failed and are now calling for more of the same. Reconstruction never happened.

Result: Losing war.

Grade: F

http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhard...lhardt358.html The estimate will be a government document if published, for God’s sake.

[lilpixieofterror]

Wow what a beauty of misunderstanding and poor reading! It was I - NOT Lew Rockwell - who argued that if a POTUS orders the armed forces particularly the Air Force to attack a weak nation using the current American style of warfare and numerous civilian losses resulted ('collateral damage') and drags that war on for years resulting yet more civilian deaths, then the POTUS must be judged guilty of murder. He surely must know what is going on. You've said he's an idiot, but I think he does know what's going on. He's evil.

And again you took the article from Lew Rockwell who claimed to have taken the article from a paper. I want the origional article Now either give me the link or admit you have nothing but Lew Rockwell to back up your stupidity with.

Possibly another guy for LPO Terror to emulate. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/023593.html Note: the article cites the NY Times, so it’s not all Lew Rockwell. If LPOT wants to dispute the facts of the case, she will have to dispute the NY Times.

Sorry, but you gave a link to Lew Rockwell and I asked for the origional article from NY Times. What part of 'source materal' are you not understanding? I do not accept crap from Lew Rockwell after I caught him lying about what the military teachers you and I'm emulating an idiot who doesn't know how the military works. Keep linking to your hero Lew Rockwell, sooner or latter you'll actually give the origional source materal (but I doubt it).

blah blah blah...

Like I said, origional source materal and no links by Lew Rockwell. I have already shown he's a liar once and I don't accept anything by him again. Either give a link to the origional articles or don't bother to give me anymore idiotic crap.

[Augustine2004]

What an ingenuous dodger you are. Why can’t you go to the Lew Rockwell article, look for the NY Times link and click on it?? Lazy, huh!

It’s possible Lew made a mistake. He’s human after all. Liar? You’re a liar yourself.

I think you meant an earlier NY Times article, but this is the most recent one that I cited.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/wa...hp&oref=slogin

[lilpixieofterror]

What an ingenuous dodger you are. Why can’t you go to the Lew Rockwell article, look for the NY Times link and click on it?? Lazy, huh!

Like I said, I'm not going to read any link by Lew Rockwell, it is a waste of time.

It’s possible Lew made a mistake. He’s human after all. Liar? You’re a liar yourself.

I'm not the one calling people murders I don't even know. Lew Rockwell and you by default are though.

I think you meant an earlier NY Times article, but this is the most recent one that I cited.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/wa...hp&oref=slogin

That's nice... and your point with this article is...