France and Canada confronting violent Islamic terrorism

You may be the first person on this forum, and perhaps in Earlpearl's life, to imply he is some sort of Neocon.

I was just rereading the British socialist Christopher Hitchens last book, specifically the part covering the first Gulf war. Its funny how one occasionally needs to go back and reread history to understand the sources of our problems.

In many ways, Saddam Hussein was every bit as evil as Adolph Hitler, whether we are talking about his wars of aggression against Iran and Kuwait, the systematic genocide waged against the ethnic Kurds, or the horrific police state he ran where fear and torture were the order of the day. We (the US) didn't do anything about it until he invaded Kuwait, and then with worldwide support, we decimated his army and drove him from Kuwait.

The truly shocking thing is that we left him in power. Can you imagine us leaving Hirohito or Hitler in power after WWII? It was unprecedented, especially for such a monster.

Not only did we leave him in power, we specifically signed the authorization that allowed him to fly sorties against his own people to supposedly reestablish order. The truth is, we inadvertently supported genocide because Bush I, Schwarzkopf, and Powell didn't want to have to deal with the politics of an occupation that would happen a decade later anyway. It is one of the huge reasons I cringe every time Powell hands out political advice.

That simple political decision changed the landscape of the next two decades. Had it been made differently, we might well have avoided 9-11, the never ending war on terror, and the threat of a nuclear Iran. We would for damn sure have avoided the second gulf war.

Its a fact of life. Some people need killin, and sometimes you need to drop a lot of bombs to save lives.

 

Been protecting you and your country for how many years now? You're welcome.

 

If you are referring to your valuable work, collecting empty bottles and cans for recycling, we don´t send Canadian wastes to your state.

 

So where DO they send you?

 

Gworld: Fundamentalist Islamic haters do nothing good for people anywhere. shiite fundamentalists in Iran kill anyone who disagrees with their crazy world. They kill Iranians they are the support for the Syrian govt that is slaughtering its own people daily. They enjoy taking on the sunnis. The sunni fundamentalists like killing shiites.

They all kill muslims and they like to target the west. Fortunately they have killed more muslims than westerners, IMHO. They have a more difficult time killing westerners in their native lands. God forbid they catch you in an Islamic world. You are toast.

You are their targets. They make no exceptions. In Algeria the folks that have escaped the attack on the natural gas plant reported the terrorists wrapped bombs around their bodies. Ready to blow them up. Some of the captives of the attackers escaped, were rescued, and had to have those devices deactivated by the military that rescued them.

Despicable killer terrorists.

In the past we supplied weapons to people who turned into terrorists. No doubt. Afghanistan is a prime example. Syria, maybe not so much. It looks like plenty of arab/islamic forces are arming both sides.

So what. If we took an action at one time, it could have unexpected consequences that could come back to haunt you. that is all of life. You could marry a woman you love and adore and her parents, your in-laws terrorize you. Unexpected consequences. They happen in all cases in all circumstances and throughout life and they happen with national policies.

Would all of Africa and Saharan Africa be better if the entire populations had better lives and conditions. Yes. Expensive and difficult and frankly nobody from the West wants to do that in great levels and spend the money. such is life.

None of that means that the west shouldn't blow the extremists to smithereens when we can, take them on and fight them to the death when we can. The west is lucky to be better armed, and have better technology. The fundamentalists want all that so they can use it against the west.

Better IMHO to kill em all if we can and before they get the technology to do more damage.

Al queda attacked the world trade center, the pentagon, had another plane aimed at the Capitol or the White House that was taken down. Before that it launched attacks on the west and since then it has launched attacks on the west. It has launched attacks in Spain, in Britain, and anywhere it can. It likes killing innocent folks.

They'd rub you out in a second. They don't care if you preach tolerance in a web forum. You are a westerner and more fundamentally you don't follow their most extreme form of Islam that gets them to kill other Muslims. They have shown an indiscriminite interest in killing and destroying one and all.

So I'm glad the French and Algerians are taking them on. Kudo's to the African nations sending troops into Mali. I'm sure the vast vast vast citizens of north mali who walked through the desert to escape the fundamentalists agree with me. Those folks voted with their feet. There is bad and there is worse. The fundamentalist terrorists are worse.

I know I agree w/ the right wing American propogandists on this issue. I'm not a died in the wool liberal or a conservative. I look at every issue differently. I try and study issues before I open my big mouth or throw out opinions on web forums.

Now Gworld: here is a total aside on this topic. You may find it interesting.

You got me thinking and looking at current results about planning and development on that thread from a while back. I looked at one planned city I studied so long ago, Columbia, Md, and I looked at recent goings on in the DC area about the spread of its subway system. Over a decade ago when I left commercial real estate I worked for a year w/ engineers doing transit development and we worked on the Environmental Impact study mandated for this project. That was over a decade ago...and the first part of that big project is nearing completion of construction.

I noted two things similar about both of them. Columbia was master planned. It's well laid out with a lot of residential and user friendly layouts that make sense and make it beneficial and pleasant. Its worked over the long term. Its growth though is completely subject to the market. It grew residentially and commercially in spurts. When the market was hot it grew. When the market was lousy it either shrunk or stayed static. Its evolution was a function of both things, IMHO.

The DC metro(subway system) is also a function of a lot of planning, and money, and the market. It was started in the late 1960's. The first expansion into Virginia was around 1980 as I recall at least in one line. (orange line).

That line is the foremost example of what is called "transit oriented development". Essentially high rises near subway stops. That type of development encourages ridership. People ride subways to highrise office buildings or ride to work from highrise residential buildings. It influences development in an area no doubt.

The DC metro system is a necessity. The region has miserable traffic, among the worst in the US. Its mostly associated with commuting. The subway system sucks up a lot of commuters but still traffic is miserable. Its a mini version of NYC and its system. (btw: after sandy hit and when transit systems were down, NY region had traffic backed up for hours and hours and hours. It shows how that region relies on transit to keep its economy growing.).

So 2 observations about planning and development on the DC system. In the aforementioned orange line corridor, I've watched it's development for 30 years. its simply the most successful example of this "planning goal" in the US.

There was a lot of planning that went into its original route. Planners changed the original plan dramatically. Its worked. But the development that has ensued is totally a function of market conditions. Its grown in spurts. Nothing then rashes of development in hot periods. The latest spurt in this area was around a subway stop with minimal development over 25 years or more. In the last 8 years and in part during this recession period it changed entirely. Lots and lots and lots of high rise residential. Not much high rise office. Most of it residential.

So what has occurred. the metro stop at that place is overcrowded and can't easily accommodate the usage. Also w/ all those residential buildings the area has this huge restaurant and bar area on the first floor. So many restaurants/bars with relatively little day usage from office workers. A lot of those restaurants/bars don't open till about 4 PM.

Now the other consequence comes from the cops. All those local bars have increased late night drunkenness and other problems. Sort of unexpected consequences...but a function of markets. I'm sure the smart planners from 40 years ago didn't figure on geographical nodes of late night drunks.

 

When you started in this forum, you were pro-war and conservative. I am glad that on many points you have shown an open mind and learned from your mistakes and now you are actually trying to defend liberal views. On the other hand, in the matter of war you have shown no progress and still defend the old ideas that we should kill them all. I have served in my country military, so I am not your typical hippie that preaches tolerance. I am a realist that learns from history and thinks that the duty of military is to serve and defend the interests of the nation and not serve as mercenary force. Lets look the history of USA.
USA used force in Vietnam, who won the war? Vietnamese.
USA killed people in Nicaragua, El Salvador,... Who won in those countries? People who were fighting USA.
USA attacked Afghanistan. Who is winning and will take over the country by 2014? Taliban
USA attacked Iraq. Who is wining there? Iran and Al qada.

Only stupid people repeat the same mistake over and over and over again. The USA government has no interest in national interest of the country and is only serving bunch of companies that are hoping to steal as much as possible from these countries or are making money out of the war itself.
You talk about Iran, have you been there? Have you talked with the people there? You will be surprised how many persons in their government think that USA is the best country in the world. These problems are based in geo-politics and economy and not religion. I don´t deny that there are crazy people who believe in all the religious nonsense but stupid fundamentalist are everywhere and if that was a reason for bombing a country, then USA will be on the top of the list. Just look at some of the nut cases in this forum who post Obama is anti-Christ because Bible said so.

On the city planning part of your post, is it ok if I post it on tomorrow city forum?

 

Comedy. Who won the American Civil war? The Americans! Who lost the American Civil War? The Americans! Thanks for demonstrating your in depth knowledge of the subject.

I have friends who live in Vietnam. They make a healthy living exporting goods to the United States for sale at some of our major retail outlets. Looking at the results, I'd say we got the outcome we were aiming for. So much for the failed ideas of communism.

Pick up a history book. First, we weren't at war in those countries, we simply sponsored covert activities. Secondly, In both of those countries, the people we supported rose to power. Granted Daniel Ortega finally won the presidency of Nicaragua, which has done nothing but bring that nation lower than the armpit it already was, but El Salvador has done well with the support of the US. This from someone who saw El Salvardor first hand then, and now.

You also forgot to mention our other not so covert operation in Central America. Panama. Tell me, where is Manuel Noriega today?

Tell me, who is currently ruling Afghanistan? Where is Mullah Ohmar? Kahlid Mohammad? Osama Bin Laden? When we leave Afghanistan, they will be responsible for their own fate, but only a moron calls sending the majority of it's fighters and leaders into a meat blender a victory.

LMAO. Tell it to Saddam, the bathists, and the republican guard.

There is an Iranian member of this forum that disputes everything you have to say on the subject. Excuse me if I take the story of the native Iranian over the word of a self proclaimed Marxist who runs a carpet cleaning company in the south of Spain.

 

Gworld, the US has also "won" some wars. WWII was a little one. We also led the effort to end mass genocide in the Balkans. That result saved the lives of a lot of muslims.

As to your list....

Vietnam, retrospect and as seen during the war, it was a bad American mistake. 56,000+ Americans died plus untold natives. Contrary to how o-nation spins everything we left....and it was a disgraceful looking final leaving with people clamoring on helicopters at the last second to escape.

We didn't lose in the context of Vietnam running this country...but we didn't win. The north vietnamese won. Now 40 years later conditions are different. No need to spin this tale o-nation, unless everything you say is twisted with politics. It was a terrible process and set of decisions by the US govt digging ever deeper into that war over the better part of a decade and supporting shitty south vietnamese govts. all under the then reasonable effort to halt the spread of communism...but in this case it was a miserable failure, no doubt.

Iraq. An epic story that helped to define Bush as the "miserable failure" His own staffers turned against it b/c most everything that was done by the US turned out crappy. 5,000 American deaths, 30,000+ wounded and $1 trillion later the outcome is still in doubt as far as American policy and interests are concerned. But the outcome might not be that different than if miserable Saddam Hussein was still there, besides that different folks would have died, there would be no al queda there and the nation would not be accommodating to Iran.

None of that though negates fighting fundamentalist terrorists who want to kill everyone and everything and have targeted the west endlessly.

Just kill them before they kill you. that is simple. There is no middle ground with them.

 

WWII was a very different war, it was a war between countries and not with unidentified group of people. Your definition of fundamentalist terrorists that want to kill everyone and everything is flawed. No intelligent person in the world wants to kill everyone and everything and if you look at the result so far and how they are kicking USA ass with very little equipment or money, you have to admit that they are very intelligent. You have to look at why they are against USA and you will see that they are not against the country and the people but against certain companies and the government that acts as mercenary force to rob their country.
The only way to win this war is to help these countries to develop as nation and improve the living standard and education so they have a hope in life and denounce stupid religions. Things are not as black and white as you think and there are complicated questions in the background. Do you think USA and Iran really hate each other and your government is going to destroy them? May be you should read this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-iran-usa-exports-idUSBRE89E04L20121015

This doesn´t even include all the export that American companies are doing through their European and Asian subsidiaries.

 

This is what it looks like when Democrats run a war. Between Kennedy and LBJ, they managed to completely screw the pooch and America's confidence in it's military for two decades. It took a Republican president to pull the plug on their war mongering. It took a Republican president to bring a victorious end to the mostly covert cold war. It took a Republican president (George H.W. Bush) to restore America's faith in it's ability to wage war.

We abandoned those people. It was a civil war, we picked a side and tried to wage a politically correct war. I still cringe when I think about soldiers being spit on as they returned from a tour of duty where many of their friends had died, all because people like John Kerry were selling the idea that our men in uniform were baby killers, and the left ran with it.

Communism in Vietnam met the fate communism meets in every country. Failure.

What amazes me is how quickly the left forgets that Saddam gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people. These are verifiable facts. By some estimates, if one weighs in the death toll from his wars with Iran, the Saddam body count goes into the millions.

Anyone on the ground in the 91 gulf war can verify that US soldiers were greeted as liberators, only to be betrayed as people like Colin Powell advised against removing Saddam from power. Had the American left, including Barack Obama, had their way in 2006, our departure from Iraq would have looked eerily similar to our departure from Vietnam 30 years earlier.

For the record, FDR didn't win WWII. That accolade goes to Harry Truman, the guy who authorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

LOL. You definitely live in a Matrix of alternative reality. USA didn´t lose in Vietnam and even if it lost in Vietnam, it wasn´t the government fault, it was John Kerry a Lieutenant in US Navy fault.
Saddam was a bad man, so lets forget that he killed and gassed his people with the help of USA and we supported him through all the massacres because if we say he was bad, then it justifies that he had nothing to do with 9/11 and how Bush f*cked up the war in Iraq and made USA bankrupt in the process.
The faith of American in military is restored and no matter how bad we are losing in every country we have got involved in, we will keep the faith and in case we have to admit something then we blamed it on Obama because he is a Democrat and my friends say Anti-Christ because it has been said so in Bible and not the fault of Republicans who in the hope of plundering the natural resources of these countries took a chance which has damaged USA for many years to come.

 

They say plagiarism is the purest form of flattery, so thanks for the compliment. Just a few pointers. If you are going to properly mock me with my own arguments, you have to actually use my arguments.

You can't just manufacture my argument, like claiming I said we didn't lose Vietnam, or our reasons for entering the 91 gulf war had anything to do with Saddam gassing his own people or 9-11. When you do that, it just makes it look like you have poor reading comprehension skills.

 

O-Nation: your attempt to initially spin a result to Vietnam is the epic reason one NEEDS to doubt anything that comes out of the mouth of Right Wing Conservative Propagandists.

We did not win in Vietnam. OTOH: The North Vietnamese did not beat us in the context of running our nation.

We left. We quit fighting. It was a terrible war for America. Too many died. Too many got in fights among Americans. Too many who served were treated poorly upon returning. Too much money went into a war while we were spending too much domestically. (now there is a lesson the GOP never learned).

40 years later much has changed. That is true. In this event, in Vietnam, its version of a communist government is one with a market based economy trying to compete with all other nations while maintaining its one party one/vision governmental perspective. A lot like China as a government and economy though much smaller, ironically it competes with China and is fearful of Chinese domination of the Asian world.

Vietnam now welcomes and does business with Americans. Its so amazing. Very big changes CAN occur after 40 years. 40 years after the end of World War II, by 1985, Japan and Germany, once our enemies were our allies. 40 years after WWII Japan and Germany, two nations blown to bits and devastated by WWII were thriving economies, among the strongest most vibrant economies in the world and the benefits did spread through the population to a reasonable basis, enriching the Japanese and Germans.(West Germans)

OTOH: 40 years following the birth of Israel, the middle east is still the miserable center of hate and miserable Arabic/Islamic nations that degrade their populations. 40 years from that date would have been 1988. Now its 2013. Another 25 years have passed. The middle eastern world and nations still haven't advanced.

some parts of the world advance. Some parts don't. O-nation, fabricating endless lies to fulfill your political POV is one of the reasons people don't advance.

Its also a good reason to not believe a word you put out.

 

Nope, was referring to the shield of safety you enjoy. You are very welcome.

 

Spin a result? Why don't you clip in the text from my post that you feel was incorrect. Vietnam, like most historical events, is a multidimensional picture made up of a million brush strokes, and I simply shared a few of the more obvious and poignant brush strokes.

Here, why not remind yourself of what our future Secretary of State had to say about our troops while the war was still underway, and you tell me if you think his testimony made a difference in how we treated our people in uniform.

 

Found it!!!

But now I really don't care.

 

The difference is on that time American people were decent people who got outraged by torture and massacre of civilians while during the last 15 years, Republicans have brain washed the people that they should be psychopaths that don´t give a damn about torture, rape or killing of civilians if they wish to be safe from boogeyman.

 

What an hopeless excercise.

Why don't the French fix their economy instead of invading other countries.

 

@Gworld: You and John Kerry would get along. Events like the Mai Lai Massacre and Abu Ghraib are all the evidence one needs to prove American soldiers are nothing more than terrorists of a different flag. I can't thank you enough for piping up to give us an idea of what kind of man John Kerry is.

At some point, you should read up on the bombing of Dresden, a battle in a war we won.

LMAO. It can't be coincidence a city whose name is synonymous with "The middle of nowhere" is smack dab in the middle of Mali. It reminds me of another such place. Ever heard of "Butt f*ck Egypt"?

 

Or
Timbucktoo