AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (56 comments)

  1. You actually think that al Qaida is real? No, it’s a Creation of the CIA (look it up in WIkipedia if you are that clueless). It’s a PUPPET that the CIA uses to keep the lemmings (are you one) so scared that they’ll demand we keep spending BILLIONS (trillions?) on “wars” so the military/industrial complex Elite can be SUPER RICH!
    They are “activated” when they’re needed to help get the “ducks in a row” for the next step of the Agenda.

    1. WTF?

  2. …Will al Qaeda come back to finish the job on some or all of these and other failed plots? The record suggests they will. But don’t worry. The president assures us the “tide of war” is receding — so we can focus on “nation building here at home.” Unfortunately, the enemy is still focused on attacking us here at home. We forget this at our peril.

    What a bunch of crap. The Padilla case shows just how little the US government cares for the rights of its own citizens. Not only did it deny Padilla the basic right of habeas corpus but it argued that courts could not question the president’s belief that Padilla was an enemy or that he should be held indefinitely. He was denied council and the right to tell anyone what the government was doing to him. He was not convicted of committing a terrorist act, only of thinking about committing an act even though there was no credible evidence against him. Now that Bush is no longer there the same idiots who keep cheering the made up threats even as they were creating new ones are worried that Obama should not stop the needless wars that most voters want ended.

    Mr Thiessen and his readers need a bit of perspective. This is not the first time governments have overestimated the dangers and tried to keep populations afraid. Whenever governments get into trouble they try to find enemies. And when enemies are not there or are not really a material threat, governments invent them or overstate the risks.

    Frankly, it does not matter which side wins this argument. In the end reality will carry the day as the US taxpayer is no longer able or willing to spend more on the military than the taxpayers of the next 40 countries combined and the analysts finally find the courage to point to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the neocons that are responsible for much of the mess that the US finds itself in.

  3. Just what makes people like stevor and Vangel think like this? There is no “military-industrial complex” and never was (those who tiredly cite Eisenhower’s speech have clearly never read it because it was about a runaway welfare state, NOT defense spending). As for spending billions, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions spent on the entitlement/slacker-subsidy state.

    The Padilla case is a laughable argument. The US has never overestimated anything; it has always been guilty of underestimating enemy threats. And the boilerplate about keeping the population afraid never rings true given the prevalence of opposition to American victory (can ANYONE name the last time since 1945 the Dominant Media Culture actually supported US victory?)

    The “US taxpayer is no longer able or willing to spend more on the military than the taxpayers of the next 40 countries combined” argument is a crock. We don’t spend much on the military – entitlement spending in just one year outraces ALL military spending ever. The neocons are the ones who have consistently been right in the argument.

    1. Just what makes people like stevor and Vangel think like this? There is no “military-industrial complex” and never was (those who tiredly cite Eisenhower’s speech have clearly never read it because it was about a runaway welfare state, NOT defense spending). As for spending billions, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions spent on the entitlement/slacker-subsidy state.

      Really? The military consumes more than $1 trillion a year. That is around 77% of the individual income tax revenue collected by the federal government. Many of the entitlements are paid for by contributions that are allocated to paying for them. You try telling the individual taxpayer, even in a Red State, that 77% of all of his tax will go towards nation building abroad and the defence of Japan, Korea, and Germany and see how they react.

      The Padilla case is a laughable argument. The US has never overestimated anything; it has always been guilty of underestimating enemy threats. And the boilerplate about keeping the population afraid never rings true given the prevalence of opposition to American victory (can ANYONE name the last time since 1945 the Dominant Media Culture actually supported US victory?)

      Padilla did not carry on any attack. The ‘evidence’ was phone calls that the government’s own experts admitted contained no code words for attack but were about learning the language. The bin Laden video that they used was ten years old and said nothing about attacking the United States in North America or mentioned any of the defenders. He was tortured and denied the rights that so many Americans died defending. Now that the ‘other party’ is in charge the GOP fools are crying about it. If the government can deny Padilla his rights I see no way that it cannot do the same for people who advocate gun ownership, nonviolent resistance, drug use, prostitution, or any other issue that is not popular at the moment.

      I write what I write and say what I say because I understand my history. The same type of nonsense as you are defending has always been used to create imagined enemies that are made to look to be far more dangerous than they really are. Look at all of the FBI ‘busts’ where some idiot is found to carry on some threat with equipment that the FBI gives him. Such idiots are all around us but they tend to be harmless unless some agent provocateur comes into the picture and plays a role to advance some stupid plot that is used to set up the dupe who is later arrested as a terrorist.

      The “US taxpayer is no longer able or willing to spend more on the military than the taxpayers of the next 40 countries combined” argument is a crock. We don’t spend much on the military – entitlement spending in just one year outraces ALL military spending ever. The neocons are the ones who have consistently been right in the argument.

      I provided several links that showed that the US spends more than the next 40 countries combined. The American military was responsible for around 46% of total military spending. The 54% spend by the rest of the world includes around 24% spent by the UK, Germany, Japan, France, and NATO Europe, all of which are allies, and some spending by countries that received military aid from the State Department.

      The numbers are all there for anyone willing to look at them. The fact that people don’t shows that they like a nice story rather than facts that shed light on the reality.

      1. Vangel – the number is not even half that. The military is less than $500 billion per year – entitlements consume multiple times that per year (well over $2 trillion). It’s why the debt is as high as it is – it never swells because of military spending. I can tell taxpayers the truth because it’s the truth. Entitlements are the pyramid scheme consuming the debt. It’s not military spending and it never will be.

        The Bin Laden video was about attacking the US – that’s what Bin Laden videos are all about; they’re not about anything else (it’s all he had to puff himself up to the rest of the Islamo-Arab world; he wasn’t the Ernst Stavro Blofeld of Islamo-Arab terrorism the CIA pretends he was; he was mostly a hanger-on while the groups backed by Islamo-Arab states like the real Al Qaida did the actual dirty work). There was no “torture.”

        You do not understand history, Vangel. That you cling to the myth of “FBI giving equipment to” such and such shows you don’t. There are no imagined enemies – only real ones.

        Your links about US defense spending were discredited decades ago. The numbers are the opposite of what you pretend – we don’t spend that much on the military.

        1. Vangel – the number is not even half that. The military is less than $500 billion per year – entitlements consume multiple times that per year (well over $2 trillion). It’s why the debt is as high as it is – it never swells because of military spending. I can tell taxpayers the truth because it’s the truth. Entitlements are the pyramid scheme consuming the debt. It’s not military spending and it never will be.

          Where do you get your numbers? They certainly do not reflect what is being reported by the CBO or Congress. I get a Pentagon budget of around $560 billion. That does not include the $90 billion of supplementary expenditures for the wars. Add to that things like the cost that is under the Department of Energy for the nuclear warheads and you have another $19 billion. Add another $ billion for other ‘military related activities’. Let us not forget the $8 billion spent by State for security in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more than $40 billion that it spends on military aid, arms sales, aid to Israel, Turkey, Egypt, etc. Then there is the $140 billion for the VA, which is certainly military related. Did you forget DHA and its nearly $45 billion of spending? How about the military part of the NASA budget? Those spy satellites are not free. Then there is the CIA’s drone program and other activities, NSA, the FBI counterterrorism operations, and a quarter of the interest costs for the accumulated debts from military operations over the years. Add them up and the number is around $1 trillion.

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/32_1.pdf

          The Bin Laden video was about attacking the US – that’s what Bin Laden videos are all about; they’re not about anything else (it’s all he had to puff himself up to the rest of the Islamo-Arab world; he wasn’t the Ernst Stavro Blofeld of Islamo-Arab terrorism the CIA pretends he was; he was mostly a hanger-on while the groups backed by Islamo-Arab states like the real Al Qaida did the actual dirty work). There was no “torture.”

          It was a ten year old video. There are many people who have lots of video on their computers and other equipment who are not terrorists. If we arrested all of them you would have another 100K or more in your jails. The point was that he never committed a terrorist act, which is what justice is about; we put people in jail for what they do, not what they think or say.

          You do not understand history, Vangel. That you cling to the myth of “FBI giving equipment to” such and such shows you don’t. There are no imagined enemies – only real ones.

          As I said, Padilla was an imagined enemy. He never committed any terrorist act and was mainly interested in learning how to speak Arabic. There are millions of Muslims in the United States. They are more peaceful and more law abiding than the typical American. The FBI has funded many fake plots where they pick out a moron, give him fake bombs and instructions and then arrest them as terrorists. This is nothing new. Anyone who id familiar with the Haymarket Affair knows that the government used agent provocateurs and hanged people that had nothing to do with the bombing. The same bit of piping was used as the basis of many stories and provoked a huge amount of fear in the population. The newspapers reported gun sales exploding and gun shops staying open all night. Nothing is new. What was happening was no secret at the time. Certainly the writers noticed and wrote about it. Everyone knew that the wave of violence was helped along by the use of agents provocateurs and official government propaganda.

          The Bomb

          The Secret Agent

          The Man Who Was Thursday

          Of course, there is always a section of the population is very useful for those in power and will do as expected when the right buttons are pushed. That is how you got into Iraq and why you cannot really make any cuts to the military until after the next collapse.

          Your links about US defense spending were discredited decades ago. The numbers are the opposite of what you pretend – we don’t spend that much on the military.

          Really? You man that the CBO and White House are not to be trusted when reporting the spending?

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/32_1.pdf

          Stop making cap up and quoting Rush and Hannity. Look at the real numbers and learn now to read and think independently.

          1. My numbers are from the CBO, Congress, and everyone else. All you’re doing is trying to change the definition to justify attack defense spending – and with all that you still cannot deny that entitlement spending consumes MULTIPLE TIMES MORE than defense spending – the “war” on Islamo-Arab imperialism cost $1.5 trillion 2001-11 – entitlements ate up that much JUST IN 2011. Military spending is never a problem.

            Osama Bin Laden’s videos are not just one ten-year old video. Your “point” is not a point at all – it’s an excuse.

            “As I said….” No, as you don’t say. “The FBI has funded many fake plots……” Wrong. You’re just manufacturing claims to justify what objective reality won’t let you justify. The US is not and never will be the problem; Islamo-Arab imperialism is the problem. Military spending is not the problem; entitlement spending is the problem.

            No, your version of what the WH et al report are not to be trusted. I’m not the one making anything up – that’s all your doing.

          2. My numbers are from the CBO, Congress, and everyone else.

            Really? Show us the link so that we all use the same data and we can look up the Pentagon budget, the supplementary expenditures for the wars, the DoE budget for the nuclear weapons, the VA budget, DHS, the CIA drone program, the NSA budget, the FBI counterterrorism budget, the pension and benefit obligations for civilians and military personnel not on the Pentagon budget, the military aid, and the interest on the debt, about a quarter of which is due to past war spending.

            You cited only the direct Pentagon budget and ignored everything else.

            All you’re doing is trying to change the definition to justify attack defense spending – and with all that you still cannot deny that entitlement spending consumes MULTIPLE TIMES MORE than defense spending – the “war” on Islamo-Arab imperialism cost $1.5 trillion 2001-11 – entitlements ate up that much JUST IN 2011. Military spending is never a problem.

            I am not changing any definitions. You have to count the war spending, which is not budgeted as military spending. Those drones are not free. You have to pay for them. The military aid to other countries is related to your military activities and also has to be counted. You have to count the money spent on homeland security, the NSA, spy satellites, VA, and the nuclear arsenal. None of those expenditures are in the Pentagon budget that you are citing.

            And just because I want the military cut it does not mean that I approve of the welfare state funding. I see taxation as theft and see no legitimate role for the federal government in education, housing, health, agricultural subsidies, R&D, energy, commerce, and many other areas.

            As for the Arab imperialism crap, nobody other than a few Fox viewers are accepting it. There are no Arab armies threatening the United States. As for Israel, it has 300 nukes and the means to deliver them to any country that attacks it. It is not the job of the US taxpayer to pay for the never-ending war in the Middle East.

            Osama Bin Laden’s videos are not just one ten-year old video. Your “point” is not a point at all – it’s an excuse.

            You are mixing things up. I was referring to the ONE video used in one trial. It was ten years old and meaningless. American justice is supposed to be about what you do, not your sentiments. And it does not involve torture and not letting the accused see a lawyer or confront his accusers for years.

            “As I said….” No, as you don’t say. “The FBI has funded many fake plots……” Wrong. You’re just manufacturing claims to justify what objective reality won’t let you justify. The US is not and never will be the problem; Islamo-Arab imperialism is the problem. Military spending is not the problem; entitlement spending is the problem.

            The fact that you are clueless about the subject that we are debating is not my problem. It is yours. How can you even talk about a subject on which you obviously are ignorant of and have not followed reports that have been all over the press?

            The arrests mark the latest case in which an FBI informant plans fake terrorism plots alongside targeted suspects. Several arrests in the last few years indicate it’s a top strategy for the government in preventing terrorism.
            Similar cases have included that of Rezwan Ferdaus, a Muslim American in Massachusetts who was arrested in September after undercover agents posed as al-Qaida members and delivered what Ferdaus believed was 24 pounds of C-4 explosives. Authorities accuse Ferdaus of plotting to fly remote-controlled model planes packed with explosives into the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.

            In Oregon, authorities arrested Mohamed Mohamud after they say the Somali American attempted to detonate a weapon of mass destruction at a Portland Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in November 2010. Authorities pretended to show Mohamud how to detonate a bomb and offered him cash to buy bomb-making parts and an apartment to hide in.
            In both cases — and in others involving plots in Chicago, New York and Texas — FBI agents have communicated with suspects over a period of time to set up fictional terrorism plots.

            Defense attorneys in those cases have accused federal authorities of conducting overblown sting operations that entrapped their clients. Authorities have defended the practice, saying it’s prevented countless terrorist attacks.
            The announcement of the arrests came as Occupy demonstrators joined Tuesday protests marking International Workers Day, or May Day.

            As I said, none of this is new. In the aftermath of the Haymarket Incident, governments and their police forces used agent provocateurs and dupes to keep people afraid and rob them of their rationality. The trials after the incident led to the murder of men who were obviously innocent but convenient fall guys for the government. When Governor Altgeld, pardons the men who had yet to be executed he pointed out that they were victims of hysteria, a biased judge, and a stupid jury. Things have not changed very much. Hysteria and bias still dominate and too many men are so afraid that they forget to think and be rational.

          3. Vangel -

            1 – No, we didn’t invade Iraq or Afghanistan – those states launched war against the West (from the late 1960s onward) and the US finally fought back. Islamo-Arab terrorism is state-sanctioned war by proxy and Saddam Hussein was its strongest sanctioner. The US – decades late – finally finished him off.

            2 – The CBO and Congressional numbers are there for you to see already – what you’re trying to do is dodge with your irrelevant references to “drone budget” etc. The fact is defense spending takes up very little of the budget – virtually all of it is taken up by entitlement spending. Entitlement spending per year consumes more than the war in the Middle East consumed in TEN years. “You have to count…..” NO, I don’t. YOU have to count the real spending because it refutes this idiotic hatred that drives you.

            3 – No, I’m not mixing anything up. Osama Bin Laden videos were all about attacking the US. Period.

            4 – You’re the one clueless about the subject. That you make self-evidently bogus claims about the FBI merely shows it. You show it again by your disinformation “quotes” about a terrorist. There is no such thing as “agent provateurs.” You just make stuff up because you hate. It makes you an animal.

          4. 1 – No, we didn’t invade Iraq or Afghanistan – those states launched war against the West (from the late 1960s onward) and the US finally fought back. Islamo-Arab terrorism is state-sanctioned war by proxy and Saddam Hussein was its strongest sanctioner. The US – decades late – finally finished him off.

            LOL…Even Bush admitted that there were no WMDs and that Saddam was not a threat to the US. How stupid or brainwashed do you have to be to still cling on to the story told by the idiots who lied you into the war in the first place?

            2 – The CBO and Congressional numbers are there for you to see already – what you’re trying to do is dodge with your irrelevant references to “drone budget” etc. The fact is defense spending takes up very little of the budget – virtually all of it is taken up by entitlement spending….

            First, I do not defend entitlement spending. Second, you do not look at all of the military spending but just look at the Pentagon budget. The CBO shows the nuclear arsenal is under the Department of Energy budget, that drones are covered by CIA spending, that the VA costs you around $140 billion a year, that DHS is split off, and that military aid is under the State budget. It is very dishonest not to count those costs or the supplemental spending for the wars that is not in ANY budget. Like I said before, add up all military related activities and you find that more than 70% of individual tax revenues flowing into the treasury is consumed by those activities.

            3 – No, I’m not mixing anything up. Osama Bin Laden videos were all about attacking the US. Period.

            Sure you are mixed up. The conviction came because some idiots in the jury were convinced by a prosecutor and a corrupt judge that watching a video was a crime. It isn’t. Padilla was not convicted for anything he did. That is a terrible indictment of the corruption in the US justice system.

            4 – You’re the one clueless about the subject. That you make self-evidently bogus claims about the FBI merely shows it. You show it again by your disinformation “quotes” about a terrorist. There is no such thing as “agent provateurs.” You just make stuff up because you hate. It makes you an animal.

            They are not bogus. The stories are all over the media. The FBI convinces some group, and it does not have to be an Islamic group, to attack some target, gives them fake explosives and makes a bust. That is what was done 110 years ago and has been done ever since to keep you scared. It looks to me as if that has worked on you. You are so frightened of some idiots hiding in caves that you have no trouble with $7 out of every $10 paid in taxes by individuals being spent on military related matters and having your rights taken away as long as you are promised a bit of security. That fear has robbed your of your manhood, your dignity, and your rationality.

          5. Vangel – why do you keep this up?

            1 – Bush did not “admit” Iraq didn’t have N-B-C weaponry – on the contrary the thousands of pages of Iraq Intelligence Service documents (showing among other things that Iraq and North Korea were working together on N-B-C weaponry) plus the multiple N-B-C testing sites, missiles and missile testing sites and the 500 tons of weapons grade uranium found showed that Iraq indeed had “WMDs” and WMD programs. They have simply been ignored by the media.

            2 – Saddam had been a threat to the US from the beginning with his sanction of Islamo-Arab terrorism from the 1960s onward. I’m not the one brainwashed here.

            3 – “I do not defend entitlement spending.” Then why are you refusing to face the fact that entitlement spending is the problem? It is NOT defense spending that is the problem and it NEVER has been. Even factoring in all the irrelevent stuff you insist on citing, defense spending is minor to the budget – 70% is nowhere close to the real percentage – it’s lower than 25% at best. Entitlement spending is the problem – THAT is what has to be cut because entitlements are inherently a pyramid scheme, creating artificial demand where there is no supply.

            4 – “The conviction came” because it was warranted. Period. End of discussion. There is no such thing as innocence here.

            5 – “The stories are all over the media.” Which makes them self-evidently false. There is no such thing as FBI provocation; it never existed. The FBI’s problem has been ineptitude, not provocation.

          6. 1 – Bush did not “admit” Iraq didn’t have N-B-C weaponry – on the contrary the thousands of pages of Iraq Intelligence Service documents (showing among other things that Iraq and North Korea were working together on N-B-C weaponry) plus the multiple N-B-C testing sites, missiles and missile testing sites and the 500 tons of weapons grade uranium found showed that Iraq indeed had “WMDs” and WMD programs. They have simply been ignored by the media.

            Pants on fire.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8JGd74dmRM
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

            The fact is that idiots like you are making the communists in Congress look like geniuses and keep helping people like Obama elected to office. By continuing to deny the evidence you show to be cowardly or incompetent boobs who have no clue about reality. You bought the story of WMD bunkers and mobile chemical weapon building facilities but somehow forgot about them after the inspectors could find no evidence that there were no weapons in them.

            Stop hiding in fear and come to the light.

            2 – Saddam had been a threat to the US from the beginning with his sanction of Islamo-Arab terrorism from the 1960s onward. I’m not the one brainwashed here.

            No he was not. In one of the clips above it is shown that Powell admitted that Saddam was contained and not a threat. There was an embargo that was denying him most of the materials that he would need to make effective weapons that would threaten the United States.

            3 – “I do not defend entitlement spending.” Then why are you refusing to face the fact that entitlement spending is the problem? It is NOT defense spending that is the problem and it NEVER has been. Even factoring in all the irrelevent stuff you insist on citing, defense spending is minor to the budget – 70% is nowhere close to the real percentage – it’s lower than 25% at best. Entitlement spending is the problem – THAT is what has to be cut because entitlements are inherently a pyramid scheme, creating artificial demand where there is no supply.

            I am not denying that entitlement spending is out of control. I simply point out that the US spends more on defense than the next 40 countries combined and that around $7 of every $10 that come in from individual taxes go towards funding military activities. Unlike you, I think that military aid, VA spending, the cost of maintaining the nuclear arsenal, the cost of the drone war, the cost for homeland security, and the cost of the wars should count as military spending. Which is why I don’t just count the Pentagon’s budget and pretend that the rest does not exist.

            4 – “The conviction came” because it was warranted. Period. End of discussion. There is no such thing as innocence here.

            Since when does the American justice system convict people who have committed no actions but based convictions on their thoughts?

            5 – “The stories are all over the media.” Which makes them self-evidently false. There is no such thing as FBI provocation; it never existed. The FBI’s problem has been ineptitude, not provocation

            The FBI admitted it you fool. You can choose to hang on to your faith based Fox propaganda just as the fools on the left choose to believe the faith based MSNBC propaganda but that only means that you cower in your cave and look at the shadows that are cast there to keep you in line. Real men go into the light and look at reality as it is.

  4. James M. Kearns

    Let’s also not forget that had government required the reinforcement and locking of aircraft doors as it required after 9/11, the Twin Towers would never have gone down. And government knew full well before 9/11 that people were willing to die for the cause.

    1. And government knew full well before 9/11 that people were willing to die for the cause.

      But what is that cause? Do you really think that people in other countries hate Americans? If you do you have not traveled very much. Most people like Americans. It is the actions of their military and their government that they do not like and each time the US government props up some group of thugs and chooses sides in a foreign dispute it crates more enemies. And let us not forget the impact of indiscriminate bombing, and drone strikes on the creation of new enemies.

      1. Vangel – yes other countries hate Americans. It has been that way from the 1700s onward from the Barbary Pirates to the Axis Powers to the Soviet Empire to Islamo-Arab imperialism. US actions have never been the reason for international hatred because we haven’t done anything. There is no creation of enemies – enemies become enemies of THEIR own decision, not ours.

        1. US actions have never been the reason for international hatred because we haven’t done anything. </b.

          You mean that installing the Shah in Iran and the Ba'ath Party in Iraq was nothing, the murder of all those people in the Philippines, the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing? How about all those drone strikes that killed innocent kids and women? How about the backing of al Qaeda in Libya and Syria?

          As I said, few people hate Americans around the world because most Americans are all right. The problem is the American government and the odd idiot here and there who thinks that dropping atomic bombs on civilians is acceptable.

          1. The US didn’t install the Ba’ath Party in Iraq. The Shah came to power after the Soviets tried to install a puppet ruler there. The “murder” of people in the Philppines – didn’t happen. Dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – cities of the state that had launched the Second World War – was more than justified. “Killed innocent kids…” No, we are not and never have been the ones to do that – it has been the totalitarians that we’ve fought against.

            All you say merely proves you’re a fool.

          2. The US didn’t install the Ba’ath Party in Iraq. The Shah came to power after the Soviets tried to install a puppet ruler there.

            Sure it did. The UK and US governments wanted their own man in power in Iran. Mosaddegh had popular support but Britain and the United States were afraid that Iran’s plans to nationalize the oil industry would begin a trend that would transfer resources from the private companies that developed the oil to national companies that could use access to their oil as a lever against the colonial powers.

            The “murder” of people in the Philppines – didn’t happen.

            Sure it did. American soldiers were writing letters about atrocities that they were committing. General Elwell Otis was not very transparent about those atrocities and tried to suppress news from getting out. He failed miserably on that front.

            And let us not forget that it was those atrocities that helped bring into being the American Anti-Imperialist League because the classical liberals who believed in free markets and voluntary association rightfully pointed out that American imperialist actions were in violation of Jefferson’s principle that the actions of a just republican government have to come from the ‘consent of the governed.’ I could go on but trust that I have made my point.

            For a person with such strong opinions you are quite ignorant of the actual facts. You might try doing some reading on the subject.

            Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903

            Dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – cities of the state that had launched the Second World War – was more than justified.

            No it wasn’t. The Japanese were ready to surrender and would have if Truman had accepted the only condition; that the institution of the emperor would be allowed to continue.

            On my side of the argument is Eisenhower, who wrote, “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude.”

            So is Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Lahey, who wrote, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”

            It is well known that Truman and Stimson never consulted MacArthur, who did not believe that dropping the bomb was necessary because the Japanese would surrender as long as the emperor was retained. George Marshall, John McCloy, Henry Arnold, Paul Nitze, and many other prominent leaders had the same views. Dropping the bomb on civilian targets was a political act that was not required for a military victory. Most soldiers, like all moral men, do not want to target innocent civilians.

            “Killed innocent kids…” No, we are not and never have been the ones to do that – it has been the totalitarians that we’ve fought against.

            Sure you did. I have attached a number of links above that show just how ignorant you are of the facts or how naive you are about your own history. All imperial powers commit evil acts because it is the only way to suppress dissent among the conquered. The US is no exception to the rule.

            All you say merely proves you’re a fool.

            No. It proves that you are ignorant of your own history.

          3. Vangel loses on facts again -

            1 – The US and UK didn’t give a damn about private companies, in Iran or anywhere else. The Soviets sought to install a puppet government in Iran and the West stopped them.

            2 – No, you have not made your point about atrocities that never happened. The US freed the Philippines and granted it independence AS IT HAD PROMISED IT WOULD OVER TEN YEARS BEFORE. Those letters you cite never existed in fact; don’t cite a sham “history” book because real history discredits it.

            3 – You’re a baldfaced liar about the nuclear bombings. Japan NEVER wanted to surrender and was preparing to field its entire population to kill every American; literally no one in Japan was impressed by the Hiroshima bombing and the Japanese were at that time hurrying their OWN atomic bomb program. The Japanese had no plan to surrender until the Emperor went over their heads and issued his own surrender. The alleged opinions of Eisenhower et al were NOT in opposition to the bombings; youe ability to read realworld context is slipshod at best because you are motivated by hate – which makes you a liar.

            Hiroshima was not a civilian target; it was the base of the Imperial Second Army and a major embarkation port. Japan had mobilized its civilian population to fight (a taste of this came at Okinawa when the Japanese army threw in civilians to fight or to be killed as human shields).

            You lose on facts, Vangel.

          4. 1 – The US and UK didn’t give a damn about private companies, in Iran or anywhere else. The Soviets sought to install a puppet government in Iran and the West stopped them.

            The man that the US overthrew had popular support in Iran. The man that it replaced him with did not. The Soviets were just a distraction from the fact that foreign policy was driven by the desire to control oil reserves. And the FACT is that the CIA did have and admitted involvement.

            http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/iran980600.pdf

            http://cryptome.org/cia-iran-all.htm

            2 – No, you have not made your point about atrocities that never happened. The US freed the Philippines and granted it independence AS IT HAD PROMISED IT WOULD OVER TEN YEARS BEFORE. Those letters you cite never existed in fact; don’t cite a sham “history” book because real history discredits it.

            I cited real history books that document real events with plenty of footnotes. You hand wave because Rush told you that they did not exist. As some who read some of these postings know, I am not exactly a big fan of court history and prefer to look at the evidence cited rather than the conclusions provided by the historians. In both approaches you lose the debate because neither is with you.

            Note that the Philippine Encyclopaedia does not back up your claims, and that you have no credible citations to back up the excuses and denials that you are giving. And note that the US newspapers of the day described torture and atrocities were discussed, and often excused in Senate testimony.

            This little detail should have been connected to US Brig. Gen. Jacob H. Smith (1840-1918), who was tried in a court martial for ordering his men to “take no prisoners” and lay waste to the Philippine province of Samar, making it a “howling wilderness.” Smith is quoted to have said, “the more you kill, the more it will please me.” His order of battle included women, children and the elderly, who were unarmed and noncombatants but who were apparently just as bad because they provided food and shelter to the enemy. When one soldier asked what was the cut-off age for the children to be killed, Smith replied that the soldiers should kill all Filipino children 10 years or older because they were big enough to brandish bolos!

            3 – You’re a baldfaced liar about the nuclear bombings. …

            I cited Ike, MacCarthur, Nimitz, Admiral Lahey, George Marshall, John McCloy, Henry Arnold, Paul Nitze, and others that support my claim. The historians are actually clear and largely in agreement on this point. Who isn’t clear are the neoconservatives who cast shadows on the wall of your cave. By keeping you in constant fear they rob you of your ability to reason and make you a useful puppet to their masters. Try going into the light and thinking for yourself. It may not be as ‘safe’ as your little cave but real men do not fear seeing reality as it is so you will not have much problem after a while. There is always hope if you stay in the light and keep your eyes open. But scary or not, it sure beats being a puppet who cannot see his own strings being pulled.

          5. Vangel, how many times must you be told the facts before you give up this deranged pseudo-intellectual terrorist act of yours?

            1 – The US and UK DID NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PRIVATE COMPANIES and never have. They went after a Soviet puppet who did not have popular support. Your “facts” are just fabrications on your part.

            2 – I’m the one who reads history; you do not. Your links are bogus because the fact is the US withdrew from the Philippines AS IT HAD PROMISED TO DO OVER TEN YEARS EARLIER.

            3 – There’s a reason why those “atrocities” were “excused” in Senate testimony – they didn’t exist.

            4 – You cited nothing about Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Actual history shows that Japan was NOT at any point of surrender until the Emperor, shaken by the atomic bombings, finally went over the Imperial Army’s head. Nowhere was Japan preparing for anything except committing national omnicide until the atomic bombings finally made the Emperor surrender.

            Those are the real facts – the man-cave insult is projection of your own dishonesty.

          6. 1 – The US and UK DID NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PRIVATE COMPANIES and never have. They went after a Soviet puppet who did not have popular support. Your “facts” are just fabrications on your part.

            Once again, I quote historical documents from the US government and the CIA. You wave your hands and make carp up.

            2 – I’m the one who reads history; you do not. Your links are bogus because the fact is the US withdrew from the Philippines AS IT HAD PROMISED TO DO OVER TEN YEARS EARLIER.

            The link was to Senate testimony and historical books that provide plenty of reference material to support the views I gave. You make stuff up because you do not like the reality.

            3 – There’s a reason why those “atrocities” were “excused” in Senate testimony – they didn’t exist.

            But the testimony shows that they did exist. They were excused by saying that it was the acts of just a few men who were tired of a guerrilla war.

            4 – You cited nothing about Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Actual history shows that Japan was NOT at any point of surrender until the Emperor, shaken by the atomic bombings, finally went over the Imperial Army’s head. Nowhere was Japan preparing for anything except committing national omnicide until the atomic bombings finally made the Emperor surrender.

            I cited the highest military leaders in the United States, who support the view that I gave. They all said the same thing. If Truman accepted the condition that the institution of the emperor would continue Japan was ready to surrender. And they also said that there was no way for Japan to keep fighting because the US navy and air force controlled all routes around the islands. I cite Lahy, Eisenhower, MacCarthur, Marshall, McCloy, Nitze and others while you hand waive and make crap up. Sorry but the evidence trumps the propaganda.

          7. Vangel, yes you do. You see Muslim armies thast launched war against Israel in the late 1940s, have continued war against Israel since, have sanctioned terrorism against the West and continue to do so, and are the ones responsible for the killings you ascribe to the West. Islamo-Arab imperialism is the enemy. The West is not.

          8. Vangel, yes you do. You see Muslim armies thast launched war against Israel in the late 1940s, have continued war against Israel since, have sanctioned terrorism against the West and continue to do so, and are the ones responsible for the killings you ascribe to the West. Islamo-Arab imperialism is the enemy. The West is not.

            The fighting over Jerusalem is nothing new. As I said, your armies sit in Muslim nations right now. Your government props up Muslim dictators just as it has done for a very long time. I do not see Muslim armies occupying Western countries. I do not see Muslim drones killing Americans. But if you remain killing little kids and women, they will.

          9. Vangel, your derangement makes you an ever bigger fool.

            1 – you did not cite historical documents because such documents that support your assertions do not exist. And what documents you do cite you clearly do not read because they do not in fact support your assertions. The US and UK DID NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. That is fact, not the sham “documents” you pretend support you.

            2 – Once again you ignore the fact that the Senate “testiomy” you cite does not in fact support your assertions – your attempt at deconstructing it merely shows this. The US was not slaughtering innocents in the Philippines or anywhere else.

            3 – The military leaders you cited in fact do NOT support your view. The facts on the ground further refute your assertion about the atomic bombings. At NO point was Japan preparing to surrender; on the contrary it was gaining greater confidence in victory because it saw the US was shaken by the brutality of the battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Emperor had to go over the country’s head after the atomic bombings to induce surrender. The Navy and Army Air Force, contrary to your claim, did NOT view that Japan was preparing for anything except to kill every American it could. All the talk about the status of the Emperer was stalling by the Japanese.

            You’re a liar, Vangel. It’s time for you to admit you’re wrong and give up this argument.

          10. 1 – you did not cite historical documents because such documents that support your assertions do not exist. And what documents you do cite you clearly do not read because they do not in fact support your assertions. The US and UK DID NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. That is fact, not the sham “documents” you pretend support you.

            Cutting and pasting the same thing over and over again will not change the facts. I cited actual material from autobiographies written by the people I cited, interviews that they gave, and biographies. I have no clue why you can’t find similar material. In fact, I just went on Google and did a quick search that yielded the following collection of quotes. It includes some of the material that I have already cited but piles on military and political figures that I missed. It cites some of the same books I gave but adds quite a few more that I forgot to include or did not know existed. Here are a few of the quotes:

            “…in [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

            “During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”
            - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

            “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
            - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

            “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

            “The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
            - William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

            MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur’s reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: “…the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.”
            - William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

            Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
            - Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

            Note that these men were not immoral cowards like you. They stood on principle and had a problem with vaporising women and children.

            2 – Once again you ignore the fact that the Senate “testiomy” you cite does not in fact support your assertions – your attempt at deconstructing it merely shows this. The US was not slaughtering innocents in the Philippines or anywhere else.

            Of course it does. It shows quite explicitly that your own army killed innocent people and used torture. So does the other material that I cited, including the material from the Philippine encyclopaedia. You don’t have to believe the testimony, the newspapers, the personal accounts, or the military courts because yours is purely a faith based position in which nobody on your side can do anything wrong because your deity is on your side. Ironically, that is the approach used by the idiots who scare you so much as they hide in their caves. There is a great deal of commonality between you. Others can see it but you somehow are blind to it.

          11. 3 – The military leaders you cited in fact do NOT support your view. The facts on the ground further refute your assertion about the atomic bombings. At NO point was Japan preparing to surrender; on the contrary it was gaining greater confidence in victory because it saw the US was shaken by the brutality of the battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Emperor had to go over the country’s head after the atomic bombings to induce surrender. The Navy and Army Air Force, contrary to your claim, did NOT view that Japan was preparing for anything except to kill every American it could. All the talk about the status of the Emperer was stalling by the Japanese.

            “…in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.”
            -Undersecretary of State, Joseph Grew ,quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

            “I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.”
            -Assistant Secretary of War, John McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.

            “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
            - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

            It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
            - Admiral William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

            “I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.”
            -Ralph Bears, Undersecretary of the Navy, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

            You’re a liar, Vangel. It’s time for you to admit you’re wrong and give up this argument.

            See quotes above. I think that your pants are on fire.

          12. Vangel, are you just naturally deranged or do you work at it?

            The US does not have armies occupying anywhere. We’re not propping up ANYONE. The fighting in Jerusalem was part of the Arab world’s invasion. “I don’t see Muslim armies…..” Yes, you do see them launching war by proxy against the West.

          13. The US funding anti-Assad groups? 45 bases “surrounding” Iran? They DON’T EXIST.

          14. Vangel, your quotes opposing the atomic bombings are disinformation on your part; Eisenhower, Truman, et al NEVER opposed the atomic bombings, then or in retrospect. You need to read real history. The facts are as follows –

            Japan was gaining strength against the US in 1945 because it saw the US was shaken more and more by the savagery of the Imperial Army’s fighting; Japan saw the US, not itself, was ready to cut and run. The US dropped atomic bombs because there was no alternative – Japan was not going to surrender; it was intensifying its attacks because it saw the US was wobbling. The Emperor went over Japan’s head to finally surrender after the bombings because those bombings were what convinced him to do what he’d never done at any point of the war.

            You can post your disinformation until you’re blue in the face and you will never be right. Japan got what it deserved because it was the instigator and atomic bombings were the only recourse left. Why not accept that fact? Because it makes the US look good?

        2. OOps!!!Formatting error fixed.

          US actions have never been the reason for international hatred because we haven’t done anything.

          You mean that installing the Shah in Iran and the Ba’ath Party in Iraq was nothing, the murder of all those people in the Philippines, the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing? How about all those drone strikes that killed innocent kids and women? How about the backing of al Qaeda in Libya and Syria?

          As I said, few people hate Americans around the world because most Americans are all right. The problem is the American government and the odd idiot here and there who thinks that dropping atomic bombs on civilians is acceptable.

          1. You mean errors of fact on your part.

          2. You mean errors of fact on your part.

            No. I presented the evidence. You give us narrative that would embarrass even propagandists like Rush, Maddow, or Hannity.

          3. Vangel, I presented facts; they refute your opinions.

          4. Vangel, I presented facts; they refute your opinions.

            I give you links to Senate testimony and government reports that support the arguments I make. You state an opinion. I suggest that you find a dictionary and look up the meaning of the words because they do not mean what you think they do.

          5. Vangel, you gave links you THINK support you except the real world does not. I stated what happened and happens in the real world. You have no right to lecture me or anyone else about dictionaries or anything else.

  5. Peter Huessy

    Sirs: The Director of the CIA George Tenet testified before Congress that there was a connection between the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks, but he said that Al Qaeda was not responsible for the 93 attack. Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind and has only said he received funding for the attack from family and friends, of whom his uncle Khalid Sheik Mohammed, now in prison for his role in the 2001 WTC attack, was one. But Al Qaeda was never indicted for the 93 attack and never took credit for it. Yousef’s assistant was from Iraq; the brother of this Iraqi bomb maker appeared in Malaysia as an associate of the 9/11 hijackers according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Inaccurately ascribing to one terrorist group almost all major terror attacks is wrong headed—it ignores the huge and dominant role of state sponsors of terror. It is not coincidence that Iran has been found by a Federal judge to be complicit in 9/11. The poisonous coalition about which we were warned by Massoud, the head of the Northern Alliance, is alive and well. It is larger than and more important than any single entity.

  6. The more the US flexes its military might on Muslim holy land,and becomes the global police the more terrorist try to attack us.Is this all connected?

    1. Is this all connected?

      Of course it is. While some among us are repulsed by the idea of initiating violence there are those who will do it as revenge for attacks on their families by the American government. When that drone operator kills a wedding party the chances that one of the surviving relatives becomes an active terrorist increases substantially.

    2. Wrong. It’s the more Islamo-Arab imperial states launch war by proxy, the more the US HAS to fight back. THEY are the instigator; WE are the defender.

      1. The way many people see it, you have bases in their countries and support dictators who kill and torture them. If their armies were over here trying to teach you how civilised Muslims want you to behave you would clearly be trying to kill them and plotting against their governments. Why would you think that they are different?

        1. No. “The way many people see it” is nonexistent. It’s excuse-mongering by the enemy to justify wars of aggression. The enemy is Islamo-Arab imperialism; it is the enemy not only of the US but of those Muslims you claim are angry at the US. “Why woulde you think they are different?” Because the scenario you claim does not exist.

          1. The enemy is Islamo-Arab imperialism; it is the enemy not only of the US but of those Muslims you claim are angry at the US.

            I do not see Muslim armies occupying Western countries and dropping bombs on innocent civilians. But I see plenty of Western nations that do that to Muslim nations. If you want the hate to stop you have to stop killing women and children while pretending that a few idiots in a cave are enough to bring your nation down.

          2. Vangel, yes you do, You see Muslim armies launching war against Israel in the late 1940s, escalating that war repeatedly since, sanctioning terrorist attack against the West from that period onward – in short, being the aggressor. Islamo-Arab imperialism is the enemy. That is fact. You cannot refute it and have no right to disagree with it,

  7. To Marc Theissen – please ban Vangel from these boards – he is a complete waste of time.

    1. To Marc Theissen – please ban Vangel from these boards – he is a complete waste of time.

      LOL…The coward who lost his ability to reason does not want anyone questioning his ignorance and irrationality. How surprising.

      1. Vangel – the coward is yourself. Grow up.

        1. Vangel – the coward is yourself. Grow up.

          I don’t fear a few men hiding in caves and would not give up liberty because I expect some government idiot to keep me safe. Funny how the right, which has no confidence in government delivering the mail or teaching kids, is so confident of the government being able to keep the country safe. As I wrote before, there is no material difference between the fools who support the GOP and those that support the Democratic Party.

          1. They’re not “a few men hiding in caves,” they’re mercenaries working for states like Iran and Syria. Your liberties aren’t threatened by our government. BTW, keeping the country safe is government’s primary purpose; it isn’t to deliver mail or teaching kids – those are issues of the market and of individuals.

            As you wrote before? Nothing you’ve written is worth citing. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is Republicans succeed where Democrats fail.

          2. They’re not “a few men hiding in caves,” they’re mercenaries working for states like Iran and Syria. Your liberties aren’t threatened by our government. BTW, keeping the country safe is government’s primary purpose; it isn’t to deliver mail or teaching kids – those are issues of the market and of individuals.

            Syria is a secular state. The terrorists are primarily Islamic fundamentalists who want you out of the Middle East. It was not Syria that armed al Qaeda in Libya. That was Obama. There is no evidence of either Iran or Syria hiring mercenaries to attack the US.

            As you wrote before? Nothing you’ve written is worth citing. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is Republicans succeed where Democrats fail.

            Really? Aren’t you the same person who lied about Eisenhower not opposing dropping the bomb when he actually wrote in his autobiography that he did? You do not look at the truth or the facts; all you do is make faith based statements without thinking.

          3. Not the “secular state” myth again. It means NOTHING. Islamo-Arab terrorists are backed by Islamo-Arab states and have been backed by them for generations. They back them because those terrorists are those states’ mercenary armies. “There is no evidence……” Bull; Iran and Syria have regularly been caught backing Islamo-Arab terrorists (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the largest until we belatedly defeated him). It’s war by proxy against the West.

            And no, I’m the one who told the truth – your quotes of Eisenhower do not match the actual record. I’m the one who looks at the truth. You do not.

          4. Not the “secular state” myth again. It means NOTHING. Islamo-Arab terrorists are backed by Islamo-Arab states and have been backed by them for generations. They back them because those terrorists are those states’ mercenary armies. “There is no evidence……” Bull; Iran and Syria have regularly been caught backing Islamo-Arab terrorists (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was the largest until we belatedly defeated him). It’s war by proxy against the West.

            Bullshit. Saddam was an enemy of the fundamentalists. They tried to kill him and put in an Islamic state and he went after them hard and killed as many as he could. the fundamentalists in Iraq did not bet a sniff at power until your stupid government put them in power. The same was true in Libya. The idiot who ruled there hated the fundamentalists, which is why you sent him rendition victims to torture. Your government armed the fundamentalists, who you had labelled as terrorists, and supported them until the government fell. Now you have the Jews and Christians in those countries fleeing to other nations that would take them and communities that have been there for two thousand years have been destroyed.

            And no, I’m the one who told the truth – your quotes of Eisenhower do not match the actual record. I’m the one who looks at the truth. You do not.

            They are his words you idiot. The fact that you cannot accept what he said and wrote shows how blind or stupid you are when it comes to foreign policy.

          5. Vangel, you’re never going to win this argument, so stop trying. Saddam Hussein was never an enemy of the “fundamentalists” and they are nowhere close to power there now. We never armed the fundamentalists – Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya did (so did Soviet Russia when it existed; it essentially created them as mercenaries to attack the West in the 1960s and ’70s).

            Eiserhower’s words as quoted by you are not what the record shows. You’re the one who needs to accept the truth.

          6. Vangel, you’re never going to win this argument, so stop trying. Saddam Hussein was never an enemy of the “fundamentalists” and they are nowhere close to power there now. We never armed the fundamentalists – Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya did (so did Soviet Russia when it existed; it essentially created them as mercenaries to attack the West in the 1960s and ’70s).

            Eiserhower’s words as quoted by you are not what the record shows. You’re the one who needs to accept the truth.

            Given the fact that Bush, Cheney, and Powell admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorists I have already won the argument. And Eisenhower was very clear, as were the other military leaders that I quoted about what advice they gave and what they thought. Yours is a faith based position that is impervious to logic. That is not unexpected among the cowardly far left and cowardly far right in your country.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content