A Taste of Terrorism – Crudely Bitter

Stephanie wrote:
Sam,

Don't you agree that it is important to understand WHY terrorism is here and now? We're clear on the other side of the globe from the Middle East. They aren't trying to kill Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, or Peruvians. They are trying to kill Americans. They are "out to get" us because we have been "getting" them, one way or another, for decades. It's time to try something new.

What's worse, is those in positions of power in this nation refuse to admit, or accept, or acknowledge (pick your term) that radical Muslims will NEVER, NEVER, EVER, accept US intervention. They reject us, our way of life, the religious and political beliefs of our people. The want no part of it. They hold their beliefs more fervently than the craziest, most whacked out twisted Christian in the 2000 year history of Christianity. They don't mind dying for their cause, they think it's an honor. Hell, these wingnuts think it's some sort of sacred privilege to sacrafice their own children in the name of their god and religion.

They will never accept US occupation. They will always seek vengence. It is part of their very being. Once this fact is accepted, only two possible options remain. Leave them alone or wipe them from the face of the Earth.

Aside from the fact that genocide is reprehensible to rational human beings, it would take decades, perhaps longer. They don't all just live within the confines of one nation, or one continent. They would take countless numbers of "us" with them. Time to leave them, their land, their nations, and their oil to their own devices. Time to get out of the Middle East.

"YES" Stephanie, I agree that it is important to understand WHY terrorism is here and now?

If you don't understand, you are likely to end up dead.

Steph, you have to make the decision of: ........

Is is more important to you to preserve your and your childrens's way of life ........ or more important to you to preserve the radical Muslims's way of life?

There is no common ground or arbitration, ....... it is one way or the other, ....... because both parties involved are committed to doing what each is currently doing for at least another 20 years.

That "20 years" is the minimum required for the US to switch from an "oil based economy" to a bio-fuel or whatever economy, ........ and it is needed for "the education" of the just-born Muslim children so that they will not also become "radical Muslims" intent on performing acts of terrorism.

Now Stephanie, if you think either can be accomplished in less that 20 years, .... why don't you first try converting 200+- million autos to run on bio-fuel or changing Ziggy's "mindset" about all the things he hates.

cheers

ziggy wrote:So Sam, are you telling us that there indeed are externalized "social costs" of extracting and burning coal, or that there aren't such costs?

Those social costs of coal either exist or don't exist- independently of how FUBAR Ziggy is.

So tell us about those social costs you and your fellow pimps in coal have been denying for all these years, Sam.

Preach it, man, preach it!

Just repeat yourself, Ziggy, just repeat yourself in replying ........ with more of the same ole shidt.

.

Aaron wrote:Once someone tells you go, you don't continue the conversation for 6 more years.

Why not? Because it is uncomfortable?

That's what they told some of us in 1965, and 1966, and 1967, and 1968 and on and on ad nauseum about Vietnam- that, right or wrong, it was a "commitment" we couldn't even discuss the merits of continuing.

John McCain says he would be OK with he U.S. war in Iraq gping on for another 100 years. And yet we're not even supposed to talk about it?

And besides, Bush and Cheney and the Iraq war supporters continue to defend the war. Is that not part of a conversation? Or are we to just have a one-sided conversation about it?

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:So Sam, are you telling us that there indeed are externalized "social costs" of extracting and burning coal, or that there aren't such costs?

Those social costs of coal either exist or don't exist- independently of how FUBAR Ziggy is.

So tell us about those social costs you and your fellow pimps in coal have been denying for all these years, Sam.

Preach it, man, preach it!

Just repeat yourself, Ziggy, just repeat yourself in replying ........ with more of the same ole shidt.

Now Sam, you are the one who, earlier today, brought up the "social costs" of
extracting coal. And now you don't want to talk about them? Why are we not surprised .................................

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Does that study that "somebody" has done on "how much we're spending on oil and gas in Iraq" include putting a price on the American and Iraqi lives that have been expended, and countless others maimed in that oil and gas enterprize? If so, what is that value? If not, why not?

It was an article posted on Yahoo by the Associated Press. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find it.

I figured, obviously correctly, that you would duck any questions about the human costs of war.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Once someone tells you go, you don't continue the conversation for 6 more years.

Why not? Because it is uncomfortable?

That's what they told some of us in 1965, and 1966, and 1967, and 1968 and on and on ad nauseum about Vietnam- that, right or wrong, it was a "commitment" we couldn't even discuss the merits of continuing.

John McCain says he would be OK with he U.S. war in Iraq gping on for another 100 years. And yet we're not even supposed to talk about it?

And besides, Bush and Cheney and the Iraq war supporters continue to defend the war. Is that not part of a conversation? Or are we to just have a one-sided conversation about it?

But you don't want to talk about Iraq in 2008 or 2009 or 2010. You want to continue the conversation of Iraq 2003 and your refuse to move on until you're "I told you so" garbage is acknowledged by GWB and Cheney, publically and they admit all the wrong you imagine they've done. Hell, you said you wouldn't offer any type of solution until 2003 was dealt with.

And that's the probelm with all you liberals. You guys can't look to the future becuase you refuse to move from the past. Bush won, he invade Iraq, it's a done deal so get over it and move on.

Sheesh!!!

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Does that study that "somebody" has done on "how much we're spending on oil and gas in Iraq" include putting a price on the American and Iraqi lives that have been expended, and countless others maimed in that oil and gas enterprize? If so, what is that value? If not, why not?

It was an article posted on Yahoo by the Associated Press. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find it.

I figured, obviously correctly, that you would duck any questions about the human costs of war.

It's not a discussion with you. You refuse to see the other side of the conversation. Until you're willing to look at both sides of the coin, there's no use flipping it.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Sam,

Don't you agree that it is important to understand WHY terrorism is here and now? We're clear on the other side of the globe from the Middle East. They aren't trying to kill Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, or Peruvians. They are trying to kill Americans. They are "out to get" us because we have been "getting" them, one way or another, for decades. It's time to try something new.

What's worse, is those in positions of power in this nation refuse to admit, or accept, or acknowledge (pick your term) that radical Muslims will NEVER, NEVER, EVER, accept US intervention. They reject us, our way of life, the religious and political beliefs of our people. The want no part of it. They hold their beliefs more fervently than the craziest, most whacked out twisted Christian in the 2000 year history of Christianity. They don't mind dying for their cause, they think it's an honor. Hell, these wingnuts think it's some sort of sacred privilege to sacrafice their own children in the name of their god and religion.

They will never accept US occupation. They will always seek vengence. It is part of their very being. Once this fact is accepted, only two possible options remain. Leave them alone or wipe them from the face of the Earth.

Aside from the fact that genocide is reprehensible to rational human beings, it would take decades, perhaps longer. They don't all just live within the confines of one nation, or one continent. They would take countless numbers of "us" with them. Time to leave them, their land, their nations, and their oil to their own devices. Time to get out of the Middle East.

"YES" Stephanie, I agree that it is important to understand WHY terrorism is here and now?

If you don't understand, you are likely to end up dead.

Steph, you have to make the decision of: ........

Is is more important to you to preserve your and your childrens's way of life ........ or more important to you to preserve the radical Muslims's way of life?

There is no common ground or arbitration, ....... it is one way or the other, ....... because both parties involved are committed to doing what each is currently doing for at least another 20 years.

That "20 years" is the minimum required for the US to switch from an "oil based economy" to a bio-fuel or whatever economy, ........ and it is needed for "the education" of the just-born Muslim children so that they will not also become "radical Muslims" intent on performing acts of terrorism.

Now Stephanie, if you think either can be accomplished in less that 20 years, .... why don't you first try converting 200+- million autos to run on bio-fuel or changing Ziggy's "mindset" about all the things he hates.

cheers

Sam I disagree. Most of the oil we import comes from Canada & Mexico. I've been doing some reading about this today. I believe the amount of oil we import from our neighbors to the north and the south is probably one of the driving forces behind the NAU, the NAFTA Super Highway, and the unwillingness of this administration and the Congress to take the steps necessary to secure our southern border and deal with the crisis of illegal immigration. If you think the loss of Iraqi oil would be bad, the loss of Mexican oil would be catastrophic.

We only get about 17% of our oil from the Persian Gulf region. We should be spending all those trillions of dollars becoming energy independent by investing in alternative energy sources such as solar, hydro, nuclear etc. We should be spending all those billions of dollars we're sending to Egypt and Israel and Saudi Arabia and dozens and dozens of other nations each year and use those funds to access the massive oil reserve recently discovered in the Dakotas. If we don't take these steps, 20 years from now we will be no closer to energy independence than we are today.

During the World Wars Americans made great sacrifices and items we take for granted became luxury items. This was necessary to achieve victory. Today our goal shouldn't be annihilating Arab people, or controlling their governments or accessing their natural resources. Today our goal should be energy independence. Until we are no longer dependent on our enemies for basic necessities of life we face the very real possibility of our destruction.

The money exists to accomplish these tasks and others, such as securing our ports and borders. Our leaders have chosen to squander it and in doing so create more violence, more terrorists, and more anti-American sentiment across the globe. We are losing American lives. American men and women are being permanently disfigured. American men and women are suffering catastrophic brain injuries. Our government is digging us ever further into debt to the Communist Chinese government, the government that refused to allow our ships into their ports. The government that repeatedly seeks to gain US technology through espionage. The communist government that subsidizes inferior goods and floods our markets with them. The government that is so ruthless to its own people.

Holy crap, this isn't rocket scientist stuff here. We're at a crossroads. If we don't change course very, very soon it may very well be too late. Our nation will crumble. We are in a very precarious situation and we can't climb our way out of it with more troops and more bombs paid for with Chinese money our grandchildren's children will still be struggling to repay.

We need leaders with the courage to tell the American people they're going to have to work, to go without a few things. We need leaders who will tell people they aren't "entitled" to things they have not earned. We don't need a big daddy or a big mama. The ideals that this nation were founded on did not include a nanny state nor did they include plans for the US to police the world.

The above response shows the ignorance of those whose mindset it is we can just walk out. They think that if we don't get oil from Iraq or the Middle East that a shut down or disruption in production doesn't affect us. They have no idea of how the global economy works and how OPEC sets production and pricing. They also don't understand that if European countries can't obtain Middle Eastern oil, they're going to get it from somewhere and it's just a matter of time until they're approaching US suppliers.

Aaron wrote:Bush won, he invade Iraq, it's a done deal so get over it and move on.

Sheesh!!!

What did he win?

Which is more important- what "Bush won", or what America lost?

Amd it's not a "done deal". It is still going on. And McCain says for maybe another hundred years.

So what is there to "move on" to?

Aaron wrote:It's not a discussion with you. You refuse to see the other side of the conversation. Until you're willing to look at both sides of the coin, there's no use flipping it.

What other side? You say that oil is a "vital interest". But you refuse to define "vital interest". And you refuse to discuss the human costs of keeping the oil pipelines open. So again, how many human lives and how much human blood is a barrell or a million barrells of oil worth?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Once someone tells you go, you don't continue the conversation for 6 more years.

Why not? Because it is uncomfortable?

That's what they told some of us in 1965, and 1966, and 1967, and 1968 and on and on ad nauseum about Vietnam- that, right or wrong, it was a "commitment" we couldn't even discuss the merits of continuing.

John McCain says he would be OK with he U.S. war in Iraq gping on for another 100 years. And yet we're not even supposed to talk about it?

And besides, Bush and Cheney and the Iraq war supporters continue to defend the war. Is that not part of a conversation? Or are we to just have a one-sided conversation about it?

Ziggy,

Have you forgotten that Aaron said he was ok with occupying Iraq for a 100 years months ago? I called him despicable and my choice of word upset you. I'm sure you didn't forget that. This doesn't upset Aaron, he supports that position.

To Aaron it's all about oil and nothing else matters. Iraqi lives and bodies and souls don't matter, neither do shattered American bodies, lost lives, or unbelievable debt. To some it's about oil, for some it's about protecting Israel and to others it is about saving face. I still think Aaron is despicable, but at least he is honest about his reasons for wanting us to stay. That's a whole lot more than I can so for our illustrious leaders.

ziggy wrote:Amd it's not a "done deal". It is still going on. And McCain says for maybe another hundred years.

So what is there to "move on" to?

You can't get past your loss in 2000 which feeds your hatred for Bush which is why you can't get past 2003. You can't make it into the present, how are you ever going to discuss the future?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:It's not a discussion with you. You refuse to see the other side of the conversation. Until you're willing to look at both sides of the coin, there's no use flipping it.

What other side? You say that oil is a "vital interest". But you refuse to define "vital interest". And you refuse to discuss the human costs of keeping the oil pipelines open. So again, how many human lives and how much human blood is a barrell or a million barrells of oil worth?

I've defined vital intersest. It's not my fault you don't get it or that you fail to understand that America NEEDS oil. This ain't a fairy tale where you can same, make alternate energy and poof, it's there. Without oil, a lot more then 800 people a year will die but you don't undertand that. That's your problem, not mine dude.

Hundreds of peole die each year in the search of oil and production of oil and alternate sources of energy. It's a fact of life. Are there deaths meaningless?

People also die in war, another fact of life. An average of 800 war time deaths per year is less then the average 2000+ in the early 1980's so I'd say, overall, 1 percent of 1 percent of those that have volunteered is a very, very low number. I doubt you'll find any war in the history or mankind with a lower mortality rate.

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Once someone tells you go, you don't continue the conversation for 6 more years.

Why not? Because it is uncomfortable?

That's what they told some of us in 1965, and 1966, and 1967, and 1968 and on and on ad nauseum about Vietnam- that, right or wrong, it was a "commitment" we couldn't even discuss the merits of continuing.

John McCain says he would be OK with he U.S. war in Iraq gping on for another 100 years. And yet we're not even supposed to talk about it?

And besides, Bush and Cheney and the Iraq war supporters continue to defend the war. Is that not part of a conversation? Or are we to just have a one-sided conversation about it?

Ziggy,

Have you forgotten that Aaron said he was ok with occupying Iraq for a 100 years months ago? I called him despicable and my choice of word upset you. I'm sure you didn't forget that. This doesn't upset Aaron, he supports that position.

To Aaron it's all about oil and nothing else matters. Iraqi lives and bodies and souls don't matter, neither do shattered American bodies, lost lives, or unbelievable debt. To some it's about oil, for some it's about protecting Israel and to others it is about saving face. I still think Aaron is despicable, but at least he is honest about his reasons for wanting us to stay. That's a whole lot more than I can so for our illustrious leaders.

Some consider your slant a devious stetement or a simple miscommunication.

I consider them a lie and that is what makes you a liar in my book.

Nice try though.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Amd it's not a "done deal". It is still going on. And McCain says for maybe another hundred years.

So what is there to "move on" to?

You can't get past your loss in 2000 which feeds your hatred for Bush which is why you can't get past 2003.

I've not said a word here about 2000. The electral process worked.

You can't make it into the present, how are you ever going to discuss the future.

I am the one trying to discuss the future. How can we discuss the future without facing the reality of the past- the reality of how we got where we are? When we forget history, we are doomed to repeat it. Are you willing to stay forever stuck in the rut of what General Smedley Butler called the racket of war?

ziggy wrote:
I am the one trying to discuss the future.

Funny, I've not seen one thought or comment from you on what to do in the future in Iraq. All I've seen is your bitching, moaning and crying about the past. If you want to discuss the future, then how about a recommendation on what to do moving FORWARD in Iraq?

Aaron wrote:People also die in war, another fact of life. An average of 800 war time deaths per year is less then the average 2000+ in the early 1980's so I'd say, overall, 1 percent of 1 percent of those that have volunteered is a very, very low number. I doubt you'll find any war in the history or mankind with a lower mortality rate.

Why do you conveniently ignore the increasingly more important mortality numbers- the numbers of innocent civilians who die in war?

I doubt you'll find any other war in history with a higher civilian to soldier death rate. Why are civilian casualties so unimportant to you that you totally ignore them when comparing mortality rates of historical wars?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:People also die in war, another fact of life. An average of 800 war time deaths per year is less then the average 2000+ in the early 1980's so I'd say, overall, 1 percent of 1 percent of those that have volunteered is a very, very low number. I doubt you'll find any war in the history or mankind with a lower mortality rate.

Why do you conveniently ignore the increasingly more important mortality numbers- the numbers of innocent civilians who die in war?

I doubt you'll find any other war in history with a higher civilian to soldier death rate. Why are civilian casualties so unimportant to you that you totally ignore them when comparing mortality rates of historical wars?

Why do you ignore the fact that they are dying at the hands of Iraqi's and not Americans?

Or the simple fact that WHEN your kind force us to leave, the deaths will increase ten fold?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I am the one trying to discuss the future.

Funny, I've not seen one thought on what to do in the future.

That only because you are not paying attention or are deliberately ignoring what I have said. I have said repeatedly said that, if this is to be about oil, that we should first have the open, public conversation about it, and including to decide how many lives and how much blood- both American and foreign- a barrell or a million barrells of oil is worth, and work from there. But you seem to have talken the stance that oil is of such a "vital interest" that no number of lives or injuries- either military of civilian- or U.S. goodwill is too much to pay- as long as the wasteful oil spigots can be left running forever.

As long as our appetite for oil is endless, then what we are willing to pay for that oil is endless. That does not make for a sustainable "future". Until, we get a handle on either how much oil we want to consume, or on how much we are willing to pay for it, the circle of endless costs feeding endless consumption will drive us to continue the non-sensical frenzy of pretending that the human costs of oil are not worth even putting a price on.

Aaron wrote:Why do you ignore the fact that they are dying at the hands of Iraqi's and not Americans?

That blood, too, is on America's hands. America went in aand destroyed the social equilibrium that Saddam enforced in Iraq. We cannot destroy an existing government, and then fairly blame the resulting anarchy solely on internal factions that were controlled before we blew everything all to hell there.

Or the simple fact that WHEN your kind force us to leave, the deaths will increase ten fold.

That, too, is what we were told about Vietnam- any damn excuse to justify more and more of the same occupation of the lands of others. But eventually after we left there developed a new social equilibrium in Vietnam, too. And there will in Iraq, too. But the longer we stay, the longer it will be before that new equilibrium evolves.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
I am the one trying to discuss the future.

Funny, I've not seen one thought on what to do in the future.

That only because you are not paying attention or are deliberately ignoring what I have said. I have said repeatedly said that, if this is to be about oil, that we should first have the open, public conversation about it, and including to decide how many lives and how much blood- both American and foreign- a barrell or a million barrells of oil is worth, and work from there. But you seem to have talken the stance that oil is of such a "vital interest" that no number of lives or injuries- either military of civilian- or U.S. goodwill is too much to pay- as long as the wasteful oil spigots can be left running forever.

As long as our appetite for oil is endless, then what we are willing to pay for that oil is endless. That does not make for a sustainable "future". Until, we get a handle on either how much oil we want to consume, or on how much we are willing to pay for it, the circle of endless costs feeding endless consumption will drive us to continue the non-sensical frenzy of pretending that the human costs of oil are not worth even putting a price on.

You're demanding a conversation on the past and agreement by all of your views before you'll discuss the future. I reject that.

As for the our sustainable future, Sam has tried to discuss that. You've ignored that as well.

You're the one that isn't looking for a converastion. Sam's right about you. All your interested in is bashing Bush.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Why do you ignore the fact that they are dying at the hands of Iraqi's and not Americans?

That blood, too, is on America's hands. America went in aand destroyed the social equilibrium that Saddam enforced in Iraq. We cannot destroy an existing government, and then fairly blame the resulting anarchy solely on internal factions that were controlled before we blew everything all to hell there.

Or the simple fact that WHEN your kind force us to leave, the deaths will increase ten fold.

That, too, is what we were told about Vietnam- any damn excuse to justify more and more of the same occupation of the lands of others. But eventually after we left there developed a new social equilibrium in Vietnam, too. And there will in Iraq, too. But the longer we stay, the longer it will be before that new equilibrium evolves.

You're tripe is becoming boring. Me thinks you need a new drum.

Aaron wrote:You're the one that isn't looking for a converastion. Sam's right about you. All your interested in is bashing Bush.

But Bush started it. All Bush is interested in is self-agrandizment of God's chosen one- the great G.W. Bush. And as long as he's doing that, I'll be tellin' it like it really is. When he's gone, then we can all proclaim, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

Until then, when you and he tell us how grand the U.S. war in Iraq has been, I'm gonna tell 'em how sh!tty that same war has been. Get use to it. Nine more months to go.