Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DeWitz

Islamic State in the Levant Advances

278 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Phaeton80

They can keep their oil. All we do when we go over there is give them more and more captured arms to fight with. It will never end and we are going broke trying prop up and defend puppet regimes they don't want There no way to win a "war" with terrorism, They are criminals, so treat them as such, All you ever really do is just boot them from country to country. You get them out of one place they just take over another.

'Hook, Line, and Sinker'

Usage notes: often used in the forms fall for something hook, line, and sinker or swallow something hook, line, and sinker (to be tricked into believing something without any doubts)

Etymology: based on the idea of a fish so hungry it swallows the hook (the part that catches the fish), the line (the string) and the sinker (a weight attached to the line to keep it under water)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

It was based on the fact that Saddam violated the ceasefire on numerous occasions. Constantly modifying the Weapon Declarations, Compromising IAEA inspectors, Violating the No-Fly Zone. The sanctions were not working. Saddam was still defiant.

They'd succeeded in killing quite a few thousand Iraqis. What were they supposed to do? To stop Saddam being "defiant"? What does "defiant" mean? Still being in power?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

It was based on the fact that Saddam violated the ceasefire on numerous occasions. Constantly modifying the Weapon Declarations, Compromising IAEA inspectors, Violating the No-Fly Zone. The sanctions were not working. Saddam was still defiant.

Talk about nonsense. If that was the threat, we would have gone in, taken the oil fields and setup shop ourselves with Europe as a partner. We assured that the world's oil moved freely and that Iraq retained her territory. OPEC is the organizing body that determines how the oil is traded, not Saddam. And OPEC would be just as hurt trading in something else. The Euro would make better sense since most of the oil goes to Europe but the Euro is unstable. But QE is slowing catching the dollar up.

Then why hasn't someone tried to assassinate Obama then? He's done more harm to American Hegemony than anything else. Your premise is lame.

UM don't supply one so I'll supply own. post-124371-0-71119800-1404093632_thumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Unfortunately due to the nature of the CIA and the other intelligence services in their role as facilitator of US foreign policy, I cannot personally take any of the statements Ravenhawk has made regarding Saddams conduct at face value. What I know is that there was a long standing plan, formulated before Bush came to power and before the twin towers, to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. Everything the Bush administration used to subsequently justify this plan has to be considered suspect at best.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

He's the most Neocon member on these boards. Word perfect script on all Neocon policies.

Its a wonder to behold.

Br Cornelius

So? You can't refute an argument just by giving it a label? Indeed that makes one think you have nothing to argue against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

So? You can't refute an argument just by giving it a label? Indeed that makes one think you have nothing to argue against it.

I don't actually engage with Ravenhawk anymore but I know he has a very fixed and rather extreme world view on almost all subjects. To the right of Gengis Khan is where I would place him on the political spectrum. There's more interesting things to do than refute propaganda.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

So? You can't refute an argument just by giving it a label? Indeed that makes one think you have nothing to argue against it.

Surely if someone sticks very doggedly to a particular set of beliefs or ideologies, it's very difficult and largely pointless to try to argue. You're hardly likely to ever be able to persuade someone who is (for example) a card-carrying neocon that there might be any other way of looking at it than the beliefs they hold. Anyway, how could you refute the neocone storyline that Saddam was trying to produce a Nuclear weapon so that he could rule the world? The complete lack of any kind of evidence (apart from Yellowcake dating back to 1981) is hardly going to be enough, is it? It's an article of faith, just the same as religious dogma.

Edited by Admiral Rhubarb
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I just don't like attaching labels as a way to refute someone. It is sophisticated name calling. Obviously if they persist in their view then you have not persuaded them over to yours.

Actually I think the description "persists doggedly" applies to just about everyone here.

Now just you watch and sometime someone will remind me of this bit of holiness I've just perpetrated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I just don't like attaching labels as a way to refute someone. It is sophisticated name calling. Obviously if they persist in their view then you have not persuaded them over to yours.

Actually I think the description "persists doggedly" applies to just about everyone here.

Now just you watch and sometime someone will remind me of this bit of holiness I've just perpetrated.

I love to come to a compromise position - but I simply cannot accept untruth in achieving it. The last straw for me with ravenhawk was when he refused to accept that Monarchy (feudalism in its pure form) is not a form of socialism. There is simple no reasoning with that kind of logic.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I love to come to a compromise position

COUGHBULLCOUGHSHITCOUGH

- but I simply cannot accept untruth in achieving it. The last straw for me with ravenhawk was when he refused to accept that Monarchy (feudalism in its pure form) is not a form of socialism. There is simple no reasoning with that kind of logic.

Ah, this is what this barrage is all about? The insecurities of the Left are coming out like a pack of ravenous dogs. If feel very honored. Well, one would have to know truth before they can discern untruth and the Left doesn’t compromise. As long as you’ve got your pen and a phone, the rest of us can just go to the back of the bus. As far as Socialism goes, I’ve clearly explained what I mean. It’s not that had to understand. The problem is with you. The thing is, is that you are unwilling and incapable of even answering a simple question primarily because to do so would destroy your position. So who has a very fixed, uncompromising world view Now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

So? You can't refute an argument just by giving it a label? Indeed that makes one think you have nothing to argue against it.

Couldn’t agree more. That’s all a few select posters do on this board. If we don’t see it their way and can present a solid argument, then we get attacked, insulted, and everything else. When that happens, I take that as confirmation of the truth of my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

COUGHBULLCOUGHSHITCOUGH

Ah, this is what this barrage is all about? The insecurities of the Left are coming out like a pack of ravenous dogs. If feel very honored. Well, one would have to know truth before they can discern untruth and the Left doesn't compromise. As long as you've got your pen and a phone, the rest of us can just go to the back of the bus. As far as Socialism goes, I've clearly explained what I mean. It's not that had to understand. The problem is with you. The thing is, is that you are unwilling and incapable of even answering a simple question primarily because to do so would destroy your position. So who has a very fixed, uncompromising world view Now?

Its not that hard to understand - but its still wrong Ravenhawk and thats why we won't be discussing it any more - or anything else for that matter.

Only one other person has ever earned the "IGNORE" accolade from me but I think you've just about earned it.

Even this is a waste of my time.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Surely if someone sticks very doggedly to a particular set of beliefs or ideologies, it's very difficult and largely pointless to try to argue. You're hardly likely to ever be able to persuade someone who is (for example) a card-carrying neocon that there might be any other way of looking at it than the beliefs they hold. Anyway, how could you refute the neocone storyline that Saddam was trying to produce a Nuclear weapon so that he could rule the world? The complete lack of any kind of evidence (apart from Yellowcake dating back to 1981) is hardly going to be enough, is it? It's an article of faith, just the same as religious dogma.

You aren't using neocon in the derogatory sense are you? :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

For me, and I think I can speak for Admiral Rhubarb as well, its always going to be derogatory - but for others its seems to be a badge of honour.

I think the main point of objection is the "achieve your aim by any means necessary" (look to the founder Leo Strauss for an explanation) which includes to lie and to murder and to start wars for "the greater good". Good has left the building when there is a hidden agenda pushing deceit as a justifiable means. The Iraq war is a perfect example of where that sort of thinking leads.

All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others. And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on principle. It is the "noble" thing for the elite to do, for the "vulgar" masses, the "herd" will become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the "noble lie" practiced with such success and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political "philosopher" Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so that they are sometimes called "Leocons."

http://www.rense.com/general68/lies.htm

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

For me, and I think I can speak for Admiral Rhubarb as well, its always going to be derogatory - but for others its seems to be a badge of honour.

Br Cornelius

I had no doubt about it coming from you. However, the admiral once accused me of using liberal as a derogatory term, when in fact I had not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I had no doubt about it coming from you. However, the admiral once accused me of using liberal as a derogatory term, when in fact I had not.

The term Neocon works on a totally different level to Conservative. I could honestly take a conservative and admire his principles (even though I would probably disagree with most of them), but a Neocon has no real principles other than the ends justifies the means - which make anything they say suspect as a reflection of what they really think. However i suspect that most neocon supporters are not so duplicitous - been merely dupes for an agenda they don't really grasp. The apt example would be that they actually believe that the WMD actually existed - despite no evidence existing and the strong evidence that the story was fabricated. Thats a special kind of naive.

Personally i don't think its very nice to lie and to cheat, and as a conservative I feel you are probably of a like mind.

The Neocon scum need rooting out of power and tried for their war crimes and that is just a fact as far as I am concerned. The death penalty would be to kind to their kind.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

What I know is that there was a long standing plan, formulated before Bush came to power and before the twin towers, to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

Yes, that is correct but because you don’t understand the bigger picture, you’ve made your own conclusions which are incorrect. What do you think they do all day in the Pentagon? We have plans to attack just about everyone. We develop plans and then file them for future use. Periodically, you take one down and update it. We have plans to attack countries (even allies and neighbors), regions, or situations (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan.htm). We might have a situation that an ISIS like organization might take over Canada, but we still would use those plans to attack. So yes, a plan was formulated long before Bush became President. A President doesn’t blindly declare that we’re going to go attack someone without first analyzing the intel and plans first. Do you think Obama just came up with a plan to bomb Libya out of the blue?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeWitz

Is ISIS/ISIL still 'at the gates of Baghdad,' or have they hunkered down on the outskirts or in outlying cities and towns? Are they gaining in strength? Is resistance by the Iraqi army and security forces stiffening? Has ISIS/ISIL consolidated their forces at border crossings with Syria and Jordan? What's the latest? The mainstream media are largely quiet at present. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeWitz

Yes, that is correct but because you don't understand the bigger picture, you've made your own conclusions which are incorrect. What do you think they do all day in the Pentagon? We have plans to attack just about everyone. We develop plans and then file them for future use. Periodically, you take one down and update it. We have plans to attack countries (even allies and neighbors), regions, or situations (http://www.globalsec...y/ops/oplan.htm). We might have a situation that an ISIS like organization might take over Canada, but we still would use those plans to attack. So yes, a plan was formulated long before Bush became President. A President doesn't blindly declare that we're going to go attack someone without first analyzing the intel and plans first. Do you think Obama just came up with a plan to bomb Libya out of the blue?

So, was the US taken by surprise (intelligence and strategy wise) by the 'blitzkrieg' by ISIL/ISIS, or just not engaged? Was someone sleeping at the switch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Well, the latest in the News:

Fresh fighting around Iraq's Tikrit

_75942956_75942955.jpg

_75942954_75942953.jpg

|
|

2 / 4

Fresh clashes erupt around the Iraqi city of Tikrit, a day after the jihadist militant group Isis declared the creation of a "caliphate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Yes, that is correct but because you don't understand the bigger picture, you've made your own conclusions which are incorrect. What do you think they do all day in the Pentagon? We have plans to attack just about everyone. We develop plans and then file them for future use. Periodically, you take one down and update it. We have plans to attack countries (even allies and neighbors), regions, or situations (http://www.globalsec...y/ops/oplan.htm). We might have a situation that an ISIS like organization might take over Canada, but we still would use those plans to attack. So yes, a plan was formulated long before Bush became President. A President doesn't blindly declare that we're going to go attack someone without first analyzing the intel and plans first. Do you think Obama just came up with a plan to bomb Libya out of the blue?

The plan was specifically Neocon in origin - it had l;ittle to do with the Pentagon and national security. War in Iraq was based on a series of carefully placed lies. You may find that acceptable but most decent people find it repugnant.

Lets state this plainly - it has been shown that they fabricated evidence to allow themselves to implement their plan. The evidence they used to justify the war were lies ! The evidence was not the basis of the pre-existing plan. That is the NeoCon way.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Its not that hard to understand - but its still wrong Ravenhawk and thats why we won't be discussing it any more - or anything else for that matter.

If you claim you understand, then it is not wrong. What it is, is that it destroys your safe little utopia and you can’t deal with it. If you don’t want to discuss it, then don’t bring it up. Why do you bring it up? You like your nose being rubbed in it every time?

Only one other person has ever earned the "IGNORE" accolade from me but I think you've just about earned it.

Oh, I am so honored. I’m surprised you don’t have more on your list. But putting people on ignore just indicates the size of one’s mind – a closed mind. It’s a physical manifestation of closing out other ideals and worldviews.

Even this is a waste of my time.

No, it’s never a waste of time to stand up to bullies like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

The term Neocon works on a totally different level to Conservative. I could honestly take a conservative and admire his principles (even though I would probably disagree with most of them), but a Neocon has no real principles other than the ends justifies the means - which make anything they say suspect as a reflection of what they really think. However i suspect that most neocon supporters are not so duplicitous - been merely dupes for an agenda they don't really grasp. The apt example would be that they actually believe that the WMD actually existed - despite no evidence existing and the strong evidence that the story was fabricated. Thats a special kind of naive.

Personally i don't think its very nice to lie and to cheat, and as a conservative I feel you are probably of a like mind.

The Neocon scum need rooting out of power and tried for their war crimes and that is just a fact as far as I am concerned. The death penalty would be to kind to their kind.

Br Cornelius

That was not an opening for you count the ways in which you hate people that are different from yourself. You are quite adept at interjecting your distain in the majority of your posts. I have to wonder what other groups you are bigoted towards...which goes totally against the liberal handbook of overall acceptance. In that way you are much more of a conservative than I.

You only think I'm a conservative because of my opinion on global warming. You know what they say about people who make assumptions without having all of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Do you think Obama just came up with a plan to bomb Libya out of the blue?

Well, it certainly looks like it... So was that part of the larger plan to expand America's interest in N. Africa and the middle East, as you've said before, of which getting rid of Saddam was a necessary prerequisite, or was it, as the White House and Petagon and the Media kept insisting, done purely on the spur of the moment in response to Gadaffi's brutal suppression of the uprising? Or was it a bit of both; Mr. O did it on the spur of the moment, but used the off-the-shelf plan that had already been set out? So was it because, once again, of his ineptitude that it turned it yet another shambles, or did the original Plan not provide for what would happen afterwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

What it is Raven is that you can't change definitions to suit your personal opinions - its really simple. If you change the language you retreat into your own bubble of unreality. I have pointed this out to you many times before. Its simply not true to say that Monarchy/feudalism fits any accepted definition of socialism. Since you can't concede the point then we can't have a discussion using any language I am familiar with.

But see you've dragged me in again - more fool me.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.