Hi Hawkmoon; I notice that you didn't respond to your own quote:
Hawkmoon, September 30, 2002
Personally, I don't want the US to be forced to engage in another long lasting face off such as we endured during the cold war. And I certainly don't want to have to do it in the Middle East. Do you know how hard it will be recruit young American boys with visions of long, sweltering days in the Desert sun?? Because this ain't Germany. (which we still don't want to leave. hehe). Their ain't no Alps. only sand dunes. And there ain't no beer, or Oktoberfest, or lederhosen. Just desalinated water, daily calls to prayer, and black veils. #reply-#reply-18051911
So what is it? Were you giving aid and comfort to the enemy last fall when you wrote the above, or are you full of shpint now when you say that you think that there's a snowball's chance in hell that the American public will submit to a policy of keeping US troops in Iraq? Which is it? Are you a fool to think that the American public will sign up for an indefinite guerilla war in dangerous and filthy Iraq or were you a liar when you claimed that the American public wouldn't sign up for an indefinite garrison in safe and clean Kuwait?
Why should the American public trust the neocons to run foreign policy when the neocons didn't tell the truth about the reasons for going into Iraq? The problem is that even in the unlikely event of the US sticking it out (in the face of eventual suicide bombings just like Chechnya, Palestine and Kashmir), it won't be the conservatives who run the show, but the liberals.
Re: "No.. YOU look.. People of your ilk are the ones who have ignored the hard realities and clear cut facts."
I know the history of this planet far better than you, and I ignore none of its hard realities. You're the one who is ignoring the character of both the American public and the Arabs. Blinded by misguided patriotism, you lose.
Re: "You're the ones who have offered nothing but half-measures and strategic band-aids ..."
Contatinment is not a half-measure. Nor is it a "strategic band-aid", whatever the f' that means.
Re: "... while ignoring the demographic explosion ..."
You keep harping on this. I bet you'd really get pissed off if your daughter married a Moslem and converted, LOL. But hey, you could have said the same thing "demographic explosion" about Vietnam (and probably did), but the fact is that Vietnam did not turn out to be a war that the US could or was required to win.
The basic problem with your agenda is that the American public won't sign up for a lengthy campaign to "save" the Iraqi people from poverty / whatever. Nor are the Iraqi people going to show any more kindness to the occupying American forces than inner city American youth shows towards police officers.
Re: "... combined with economic and political decay in the region."
The economic decay in Iraq between 1992 and 2002 is directly attributable due to sanctions that US policy insisted on keeping. The economic decay in 2003 is due to Bush's war. Economic decay in Israel is due to their war with the Palestinians.
The rest of the Arab world is doing fine. Here's the reference (oh Ye who is so connected into reality, LOL):
GDP growth comparison between failing
Islamic Republics and dictatorships,
Communist dictatorships and booming
democracies (with a few others thrown
in):
China: 8.0%
Iran: 5.0%
Turkey: 4.2%
Russia: 4.0%
Jordan: 3.5%
Libya: 3.0%
Egypt: 2.5%
Syria: 2.0%
Saudi Arabia: 1.6%
UK: 1.6%
US: 0.3%
Israel: -1.1%
You go on and on about how these countries are failed, but the CIA (which supplied the above data), doesn't agree with you.
Re: "All because you chose to ignore reality and leave your heads up your arses."
Look, I know that facts won't change your mind. You're stone cold stupid, and a self-righteous s-head to boot. But don't go away. I do enjoy pointing out your glaring discrepancies between your perverted views and reality.
-- Carl
P.S. References:
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov
cia.gov |
