Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!
Spin, actually I think the CIA gave the Islamofacists their early training in these sort of devices. In Ashcanistan I think back when we were fighting the commies.
I think that was back when we where using our friend Saddam to run guns to help those opium smoking fighters against the Ruski's! Remember, when we thought that the ends justified the means and even though we knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds and killing at random in his own torture chambers and developing WMD's for use against those damn Iranians who had attacked out embassy... Boy, Saddam was just what we needed to stick it to all those bastards and what did we have to lose... afterall, if something happend to SH so what, I mean, he's really not an alter boy so if he gets hit that's ok right.. what bad can happen from helping SH? Right?
Just had to check the timing of my last post on "vv-e-a-p-0-n-$-".
It seemed like just 5 minutes later the US Embassy in KL was closed down on the basis of a threat.
After all, my connections to contacts stateside, my background in the M.E., my constant research on chemicals and materials which can go bang (which I need for my day job), and numerous posts should have been monitored.
After all, "if you're not with us, you're against us" so that has to make guys like me, who actually question what's going on, the E-N-E-M-Y!, RIGHT? [Wrong actually! I never understood that statement!]
So if I disappear off the horizon to a rendering factory, you will all know what happened.
...but Phew!, I found the Emba$$y was actually shut down before my post!
Now the only problems are:
1. will I be able to get near the Emba$$y for our NYs eve party tonight, just behind the compound.
2. is someone else planning more than fireworks? Should I stay away?
Naaah! It's take more than a mere threat to keep us hashers away from a party!
HNY everyone!:D:D:):D
[Note for NSA: I really love America and have family there including 3 adorable little grand-daughters. I am a professional risk assessor who specialises in chemical and process hazards, and my Hash name is JR!. I work to reduce risks, not increase them and wish goodwill to all people]
No just tryig to prove my point that nothing hada changed in the situ to justify going into Iraq in the first palce other than the Spin Rove put on it. End of story.
"What woud YOU have done during the Afghan conflict?" I supported that effort 3 months before sept 11 when they where using buddhas or artillary practice and killing people in the new soccer stadium.
During the Iran/Iraq war? Please note how I have seperated your question into two equal parts? A problem that I have with most of the right wing talk show hosts mixxing the afghan situ and the Iraq situ together. They are not even neighbors remember? they are seperated by a country called Iran for right now (that is until Hizb-ut-Tahrir creates a new caliphate or GW creates one big oil drilling platform for Halliburton).
Hindsight is 20/20 if you are re-writing what you said, did, or suggested. My stance on Iraq has not changed since day one when it was proposed.
I'll take your comments as a joke. 'met. Like Bernie, I haven't wobbled, but value an open mind.
Happy New Year to you, good friend.
The run, set by "Rambo", was a hard 2 hours through jungle, hills river, mud (we call shiggy) complete with thorns and sink holes. The party later was great, with all the usual plus the close up views of the KL Fireworks at the twin towers.
Some people stayed away though because we were so close to the US Embassy, but nothing happenened.
The party was a great reminder of how our ex-pat community of so many different countries and cultures can get on. And yes we had people there from Saudi, Jordon, and the Emirates. Do they think the world is safer, as a result of the Bush WOT? No way!
I do hope that 2006 is a better year than the previous 2000's. Can't see how it won't be hell for a lot of people though, and I'm sure a certain President is going to get his reality check!
1980's: "I was referring to our involvement in the original Afghan - the one that the commies started - was our involvement justified then? "
YES
"Same question for the Iran/Iraq war from so long ago. You state that SH was our buddy then blah blah blah - were you in favor of that effort then?"
YES
My point was that the circumsances had not changed dramatcilly since that period and therefore there was not rationale reason to go into Iraq. that aside I think you might fidn the following article interesting:
"The United States and its partners in nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan didn’t create radical political Islam, whose theological forebears in the Middle East can be traced back to the eighth century. But consider, for a moment, an analogy with a movement closer to home. In America, Christian fundamentalism dates back at least to the 1840s, and right-wing evangelicals were an inchoate force throughout the 20th century. Yet until the emergence of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and such leaders as Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and Pat Robertson in the late 1970s, the religious right had no true political leaders and very little real-world impact. Similarly, the Islamic right did not arise as a true political movement until the emergence of Banna, Ramadan, and their co-thinkers. By tolerating, and in some cases aiding, the development of these early activists, the United States helped give radical Islamism the structure and leadership that turned it into a global political hurricane."
Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program....
Maybe we try it my way. As I have said before the best way to deal with this sort of issue is to flattent the whole fuckin' place and on the EXACT geo center of the land we put a small sign that reads this:
Today in the office we discussed the problem of certain operatives in our industry (Americans as it happens) who take the view "Listen Sonny , I've been doing this for 40 years"
We agreed, including the Americans among us, that the appropriate response was:
" Well you could well be 40 years out of date!"
With respect, you're quoting situations more than 60 years out of date, and overlooking the lessons since then.
Time to catch up with the world.
I'm sorry to be blunt and rude but your suggestion (one you've now repeated for G---'s sake) deserves a blunt reply.
Apparently you can talk that way in the good ol' US of A without anyone disagreeing, but on this site, the rest of us also say what we think.
I'll also say again, so everyone is clear, I believe Bush and Cheney should be removed, legally by thinking Americans,
They don't understand Iran or North Korea, just as they didn't understand Iraq. Worst of all they will not learn or care. Attacking Iran would be an even bigger mistake than Iraq. If they do so, it will be to escalate war and terror.
The US needs a reality check on the future of warfare, weapons and terror. It also need to fix its own problems at home instead of stirring up hostility elsewhere.
Has anyone noticed how things are going in Iraq the last few days?
I'm not sure what lesson I'm missing. Germany and Japan have been good allies and trading partners and in the 60 years since then the WORLD has not had any trouble from them.
If we fought WWII the way we are fighting the current one we'd all be goosestepping.
Granted your ideas for the long term solutions need to be implemented - or at least looked at more seriously but you can't let a nation threaten to kill an entire group of people simply because they are Jewish and then let them go about their business in building the weapons to carrruy out their threat.
The WORLD needs to step in and sort this issue out BEFORE force is required.
The example of Quizling and Chamberlain should not be lost on us - or were their actions 60 + years ago to be considered "out of date"?
Of course advancing armies had to be stopped with force!
Quisling and Chamberlain ?
I wouldn't make the mistake of connecting those who don't see armed force effective in dealing with the new hidden terrorist threat, with lack of spine and gullibility. Maybe the gullible ones are those who think you can defeat terrorism by killing the civilians they hide amongst.
I haven't seen that you understand the terrorist threat has developed in its current form to survive the massive superiority of the US, Israel, UK and other western powers.
It's a form of escalation of weaponry and death. The more you play their game, the more good people die. You have to outsmart them by winning over their support base to your side.
Lessons since WW2, well what happened in the USSR, China and a nest of rat holes that emerged after the various "victories"? The lessons are not so much about the actual force applied, but about the reasons, necessity, and complimentary political strategies accompanying and following the battles. America's posturing after WW2 produced both good and bad reactions in the countries most affected. It often appears that many Americans know only of the "feel good" positive side so talked up at home, and portrayed almost sickengly by Hollywood. Who is being gullible here?
"....you can't let a nation threaten to kill an entire group of people simply because they are Jewish and then let them go about their business in building the weapons to carrruy out their threat." :D:D:D ( Sorry what was your suggestion again? ).
"The WORLD needs to step in and sort this issue out BEFORE force is required." RIGHT! So let's take the actions agreed among leading nations, not the wild imaginings of a small cabal who refuse to be accountable to anyone.
Yesterday was the worst day since the elections in Iraq but I heard that Bush thinks they're making great progress there.
I know you are aware of the units I was in during my time in the ARMY - the concepts you site are all in play as we speak on the ground in some of the areas that we have forces.
The long term plan which you esppouse and I agree with is out of control of the armed forces and must be implemented by diplomats .... ON BOTH SIDES.
It takes two to make a deal - and being that we don't know who is in charge of the Islamofacists it makes the job more difficult!
No, I hope that at the State Department level the issues that you have brought up here are being looked at and molded in policy - and remember too that Pres Bush will be gone in '08 and the next Pres will have to continue - this is a very long time frame sceniaro.
However my solution to the problem at hand is reserved for people who are in primary leadership roles who advocate the death and destruction of an entire race of people based soley on their religion.
Like the old saying goes:
If a man threatens to put a bomb in your house put one in his first.
If the current leader of iran is making the kind of threats that he has - and that is not deniable or just a symantics issue - then he needs to be reigned in by the WORLD community OR STOPPED.
Just think if the WORLD had said NO to Hitler.
No Quisling ( thanks for the spelling correction) and Chamberlain kept trying to appease the lunatic Corporal and look what it turned into. Had they sorted him out early then the world would not have seen the likes of the Big One.
This is now - have we not learned from our past?
Both Iran and SK need to be given the riot act - and not by the US alone. The WORLD needs to say that the behavior exhibited by these nations is unacceptable and that if they proceed with their aggresive policies then we will be making up little signs saying:
"If a man threatens to put a bomb in your house put one in his first. "
I'm tempted to agree with that but I firmly believe that you should make sure that you do it during a family reunion. It eliminates anyone with an "eye for an eye" mentality. Just MHO.
You're obviouslyconvinced that you can solve this problem by threatening death and destruction.
What reaction to that do you expect from committed and potential suicide bombers?
How does belligerence and the inevitable civilian deaths resulting in retaliatory strikes, command respect from the civilian population?
The proof that the threats you support don't work is in the news of the bombings and body counts every day.
Perhaps our differences come from our behavioural models.
You may see a positive response from a negative action. I see negative responses expected from actions which are seen to impact negatively on one's power, status or authority.
It's a deep subject, and like you and your training and experience, I spent years of university study, at RMIT, examining these issues and have tried to calibrate the model through industry and community experience over many years.
Interestingly, much of the the original behavoural data came from the military, as well as the Catholic Church and industry of course.
If you don't get the first premise right then all your following ones can lead you astray.
does "Know first your enemy!" ring any bells?
"Shoot first and ask questions later" too often just replaces one problem with a larger one.
Back to Iran; do we understand what it would take to have them disarm and accept no nuclear weapons?? I think the European leaders are closer to understanding this than Bush and Co who are successfully accelerating the process of nuclear armament there and in North Korea.
Keep in mind that destroying sites physically won't protect the US from dirty bombs and a host of alternate horrors which would follow escalation of hostilities.
Do you believe that the remarks made by the Leader of Iran that Israel should be wiped off the map are in any way acceptable? Reply:" NO! The remarks are not acceptable!"
If so what should be done to reign this sort of behavior/talk in? Reply: "The remarks should be condemned in civilised responses, as done by most leaders"
Please levae Bush Cheney and Haliburton out of your answer because I already know that they are the root cause of all the problems in the world today.
Follow up - What should be done by the world community in order to limit the ability of Iran to carry out their threats against both a soverign nation and a people who typically define themselves via their religion?
emmet, the remark is pure rhetoric just the same as you say, "nuke the m*ther fokkers!." i suppose he's as rhetocial as many of us...full of real hate for some issues, but can do forkall about it.
he's probably wanting to bait in america to move aganist themselves and then beat the hide off their backs same as in 'nam and 'raq.
so, i propose that the international community egg on america to move a resolution to invade and this time offer no debate against it and let america get on with their job of commiting suicide.
best leave the professionals to do the job they know well...bear in mind they're gaining experience with each decade...since after getting "nuke" drunk in '46...
50s - success in korea 60s - more success in 'nam 70s - success with the anti batistas 80s - and more success with the russians in afghan 90s - now - phenomenal success in iraq...and moving on to iran and back to korea...
Comments
I think that was back when we where using our friend Saddam to run guns to help those opium smoking fighters against the Ruski's! Remember, when we thought that the ends justified the means and even though we knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds and killing at random in his own torture chambers and developing WMD's for use against those damn Iranians who had attacked out embassy... Boy, Saddam was just what we needed to stick it to all those bastards and what did we have to lose... afterall, if something happend to SH so what, I mean, he's really not an alter boy so if he gets hit that's ok right.. what bad can happen from helping SH? Right?
[Edited on 30/12/2005 by bernie]
What do you think of the old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
Whay are you in the tool business when you could be a big shot in the CFR?
It seemed like just 5 minutes later the US Embassy in KL was closed down on the basis of a threat.
After all, my connections to contacts stateside, my background in the M.E., my constant research on chemicals and materials which can go bang (which I need for my day job), and numerous posts should have been monitored.
After all, "if you're not with us, you're against us" so that has to make guys like me, who actually question what's going on, the E-N-E-M-Y!, RIGHT? [Wrong actually! I never understood that statement!]
So if I disappear off the horizon to a rendering factory, you will all know what happened.
...but Phew!, I found the Emba$$y was actually shut down before my post!
Now the only problems are:
1. will I be able to get near the Emba$$y for our NYs eve party tonight, just behind the compound.
2. is someone else planning more than fireworks? Should I stay away?
Naaah! It's take more than a mere threat to keep us hashers away from a party!
HNY everyone!:D:D:):D
[Note for NSA: I really love America and have family there including 3 adorable little grand-daughters. I am a professional risk assessor who specialises in chemical and process hazards, and my Hash name is JR!. I work to reduce risks, not increase them and wish goodwill to all people]
Spin
Hapyy New Year my friend.
No just tryig to prove my point that nothing hada changed in the situ to justify going into Iraq in the first palce other than the Spin Rove put on it. End of story.
"What woud YOU have done during the Afghan conflict?"
I supported that effort 3 months before sept 11 when they where using buddhas or artillary practice and killing people in the new soccer stadium.
During the Iran/Iraq war?
Please note how I have seperated your question into two equal parts? A problem that I have with most of the right wing talk show hosts mixxing the afghan situ and the Iraq situ together. They are not even neighbors remember? they are seperated by a country called Iran for right now (that is until Hizb-ut-Tahrir creates a new caliphate or GW creates one big oil drilling platform for Halliburton).
Hindsight is 20/20 if you are re-writing what you said, did, or suggested. My stance on Iraq has not changed since day one when it was proposed.
Like Bernie, I haven't wobbled, but value an open mind.
Happy New Year to you, good friend.
The run, set by "Rambo", was a hard 2 hours through jungle, hills river, mud (we call shiggy) complete with thorns and sink holes. The party later was great, with all the usual plus the close up views of the KL Fireworks at the twin towers.
Some people stayed away though because we were so close to the US Embassy, but nothing happenened.
The party was a great reminder of how our ex-pat community of so many different countries and cultures can get on. And yes we had people there from Saudi, Jordon, and the Emirates. Do they think the world is safer, as a result of the Bush WOT? No way!
I do hope that 2006 is a better year than the previous 2000's.
Can't see how it won't be hell for a lot of people though, and I'm sure a certain President is going to get his reality check!
Spin
Same question for the Iran/Iraq war from so long ago. You state that SH was our buddy then blah blah blah - were you in favor of that effort then?
"I was referring to our involvement in the original Afghan - the one that the commies started - was our involvement justified then? "
YES
"Same question for the Iran/Iraq war from so long ago. You state that SH was our buddy then blah blah blah - were you in favor of that effort then?"
YES
My point was that the circumsances had not changed dramatcilly since that period and therefore there was not rationale reason to go into Iraq. that aside I think you might fidn the following article interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4574954.stm
oops, sorry that was on another topic. Here ya go:
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_forecasts_dec_2005.htm
"The United States and its partners in nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan didn’t create radical political Islam, whose theological forebears in the Middle East can be traced back to the eighth century. But consider, for a moment, an analogy with a movement closer to home. In America, Christian fundamentalism dates back at least to the 1840s, and right-wing evangelicals were an inchoate force throughout the 20th century. Yet until the emergence of the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and such leaders as Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and Pat Robertson in the late 1970s, the religious right had no true political leaders and very little real-world impact. Similarly, the Islamic right did not arise as a true political movement until the emergence of Banna, Ramadan, and their co-thinkers. By tolerating, and in some cases aiding, the development of these early activists, the United States helped give radical Islamism the structure and leadership that turned it into a global political hurricane."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/01/holy_warrior.html
THE US AND IRAN
Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?
Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program....
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html
"Don't make us come back"
That would certainly ensure that the next attack was on your turf.
That bubble of yours is sure tough!
History since WW2, ME conflict, Israeli tactical responses, etc. etc. don't get through at all.
Is it the same material as POTUS uses?
Spin
We agreed, including the Americans among us, that the appropriate response was:
" Well you could well be 40 years out of date!"
With respect, you're quoting situations more than 60 years out of date, and overlooking the lessons since then.
Time to catch up with the world.
I'm sorry to be blunt and rude but your suggestion (one you've now repeated for G---'s sake) deserves a blunt reply.
Apparently you can talk that way in the good ol' US of A without anyone disagreeing, but on this site, the rest of us also say what we think.
I'll also say again, so everyone is clear, I believe Bush and Cheney should be removed, legally by thinking Americans,
They don't understand Iran or North Korea, just as they didn't understand Iraq. Worst of all they will not learn or care. Attacking Iran would be an even bigger mistake than Iraq. If they do so, it will be to escalate war and terror.
The US needs a reality check on the future of warfare, weapons and terror. It also need to fix its own problems at home instead of stirring up hostility elsewhere.
Has anyone noticed how things are going in Iraq the last few days?
Spin
If we fought WWII the way we are fighting the current one we'd all be goosestepping.
Granted your ideas for the long term solutions need to be implemented - or at least looked at more seriously but you can't let a nation threaten to kill an entire group of people simply because they are Jewish and then let them go about their business in building the weapons to carrruy out their threat.
The WORLD needs to step in and sort this issue out BEFORE force is required.
The example of Quizling and Chamberlain should not be lost on us - or were their actions 60 + years ago to be considered "out of date"?
Quisling and Chamberlain ?
I wouldn't make the mistake of connecting those who don't see armed force effective in dealing with the new hidden terrorist threat, with lack of spine and gullibility. Maybe the gullible ones are those who think you can defeat terrorism by killing the civilians they hide amongst.
I haven't seen that you understand the terrorist threat has developed in its current form to survive the massive superiority of the US, Israel, UK and other western powers.
It's a form of escalation of weaponry and death. The more you play their game, the more good people die. You have to outsmart them by winning over their support base to your side.
Lessons since WW2, well what happened in the USSR, China and a nest of rat holes that emerged after the various "victories"? The lessons are not so much about the actual force applied, but about the reasons, necessity, and complimentary political strategies accompanying and following the battles. America's posturing after WW2 produced both good and bad reactions in the countries most affected. It often appears that many Americans know only of the "feel good" positive side so talked up at home, and portrayed almost sickengly by Hollywood. Who is being gullible here?
"....you can't let a nation threaten to kill an entire group of people simply because they are Jewish and then let them go about their business in building the weapons to carrruy out their threat." :D:D:D ( Sorry what was your suggestion again? ).
"The WORLD needs to step in and sort this issue out BEFORE force is required." RIGHT! So let's take the actions agreed among leading nations, not the wild imaginings of a small cabal who refuse to be accountable to anyone.
Yesterday was the worst day since the elections in Iraq but I heard that Bush thinks they're making great progress there.
Spin
I know you are aware of the units I was in during my time in the ARMY - the concepts you site are all in play as we speak on the ground in some of the areas that we have forces.
The long term plan which you esppouse and I agree with is out of control of the armed forces and must be implemented by diplomats .... ON BOTH SIDES.
It takes two to make a deal - and being that we don't know who is in charge of the Islamofacists it makes the job more difficult!
No, I hope that at the State Department level the issues that you have brought up here are being looked at and molded in policy - and remember too that Pres Bush will be gone in '08 and the next Pres will have to continue - this is a very long time frame sceniaro.
However my solution to the problem at hand is reserved for people who are in primary leadership roles who advocate the death and destruction of an entire race of people based soley on their religion.
Like the old saying goes:
If a man threatens to put a bomb in your house put one in his first.
If the current leader of iran is making the kind of threats that he has - and that is not deniable or just a symantics issue - then he needs to be reigned in by the WORLD community OR STOPPED.
Just think if the WORLD had said NO to Hitler.
No Quisling ( thanks for the spelling correction) and Chamberlain kept trying to appease the lunatic Corporal and look what it turned into. Had they sorted him out early then the world would not have seen the likes of the Big One.
This is now - have we not learned from our past?
Both Iran and SK need to be given the riot act - and not by the US alone. The WORLD needs to say that the behavior exhibited by these nations is unacceptable and that if they proceed with their aggresive policies then we will be making up little signs saying:
Don't Make Us Come Back
I'm tempted to agree with that but I firmly believe that you should make sure that you do it during a family reunion. It eliminates anyone with an "eye for an eye" mentality. Just MHO.
What reaction to that do you expect from committed and potential suicide bombers?
How does belligerence and the inevitable civilian deaths resulting in retaliatory strikes, command respect from the civilian population?
The proof that the threats you support don't work is in the news of the bombings and body counts every day.
Perhaps our differences come from our behavioural models.
You may see a positive response from a negative action.
I see negative responses expected from actions which are seen to impact negatively on one's power, status or authority.
It's a deep subject, and like you and your training and experience, I spent years of university study, at RMIT, examining these issues and have tried to calibrate the model through industry and community experience over many years.
Interestingly, much of the the original behavoural data came from the military, as well as the Catholic Church and industry of course.
Spin
How do you and all your uni study and real world experience plan on countering this threat?
"Why would they want to do that?"
If you don't get the first premise right then all your following ones can lead you astray.
does "Know first your enemy!" ring any bells?
"Shoot first and ask questions later" too often just replaces one problem with a larger one.
Back to Iran; do we understand what it would take to have them disarm and accept no nuclear weapons?? I think the European leaders are closer to understanding this than Bush and Co who are successfully accelerating the process of nuclear armament there and in North Korea.
Keep in mind that destroying sites physically won't protect the US from dirty bombs and a host of alternate horrors which would follow escalation of hostilities.
Spin
Do you believe that the remarks made by the Leader of Iran that Israel should be wiped off the map are in any way acceptable?
If so what should be done to reign this sort of behavior/talk in?
Please levae Bush Cheney and Haliburton out of your answer because I already know that they are the root cause of all the problems in the world today.
he's probably wanting to bait in america to move aganist themselves and then beat the hide off their backs same as in 'nam and 'raq.
so, i propose that the international community egg on america to move a resolution to invade and this time offer no debate against it and let america get on with their job of commiting suicide.
best leave the professionals to do the job they know well...bear in mind they're gaining experience with each decade...since after getting "nuke" drunk in '46...
50s - success in korea
60s - more success in 'nam
70s - success with the anti batistas
80s - and more success with the russians in afghan
90s - now - phenomenal success in iraq...and moving on to iran and back to korea...
Korea - well the non commie side is doing quite well. Sorrry about the starvation going on in the North. KIA's and Hyundais are selling well.
Nam - see,s they want us to come back and set up sjhop in Cam Ran Bay. Seems the commies left them high and dry
You wanna talk Central America? Seems the commis lost there too. Not sure about that cat in Venuzuela though.
Afhganistan - we are doing way better than anybody else who has tried their hand there. Ask a Brit or a Ruskie
Iraq - you takin bets?
Iran and Korea? Well if the rest of the world would take a stand then maybe we can have a positive non military outcome.