Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Renovation Blog
Condo for rent or lease
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Truck for Sale
Reconstruction Blog
|
Culture & Politics » soc.culture.china » the US government wants to Balkanise the State of Syria .
| the US government wants to Balkanise the State of Syria . [message #227857] |
Fr, 21 Juli 2006 00:45 |
|
the US president [ who has been advised by the AIPAC ] is
calling calling for a Regime Change in Syria , the Isreali is
destabilising Lebanon .
Both the US and the Israeli government are planning for the
Balkanisation of the Iraqi, Syrian and the Lebanese states .
Will Turkey agrees to this US vision ?
the Turks want to send Turkish soldiers into Northern Iraq ,
in order to combat Kurdish KPP .
|
|
|
| Re: the US government wants to Balkanise the State of Syria . [message #227859 ] |
Fr, 21 Juli 2006 00:53 |
|
Komin wrote:
> the US president [ who has been advised by the AIPAC ] is
> calling calling for a Regime Change in Syria , the Isreali is
> destabilising Lebanon .
>
> Both the US and the Israeli government are planning for the
> Balkanisation of the Iraqi, Syrian and the Lebanese states .
>
> Will Turkey agrees to this US vision ?
>
> the Turks want to send Turkish soldiers into Northern Iraq ,
> in order to combat Kurdish KPP .
good, Syria needs to be dismantled. then, the next step, will be
taking down IRAN.
|
|
|
| Re: the US government wants to Balkanise the State of Syria . [message #228018 ] |
Fr, 21 Juli 2006 11:27 |
|
"AirRaid Mach 2.5" <airraid.mach2.5 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153436007.757329.117680 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Komin wrote:
>> the US president [ who has been advised by the AIPAC ] is
>> calling calling for a Regime Change in Syria , the Isreali is
>> destabilising Lebanon .
>>
>> Both the US and the Israeli government are planning for the
>> Balkanisation of the Iraqi, Syrian and the Lebanese states .
>>
>> Will Turkey agrees to this US vision ?
>>
>> the Turks want to send Turkish soldiers into Northern Iraq ,
>> in order to combat Kurdish KPP .
>
>
>
> good, Syria needs to be dismantled. then, the next step, will be
> taking down IRAN.
Good luck, Ikey.
>
|
|
|
| RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228055 ] |
Fr, 21 Juli 2006 15:45 |
|
FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
"fightin' terr'ism."
Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
Afganistan and Iraq, due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
============
=====
Komin wrote:
> the US president [ who has been advised by the AIPAC ] is
> calling calling for a Regime Change in Syria , the Isreali is
> destabilising Lebanon .
>
> Both the US and the Israeli government are planning for the
> Balkanisation of the Iraqi, Syrian and the Lebanese states .
>
> Will Turkey agrees to this US vision ?
>
> the Turks want to send Turkish soldiers into Northern Iraq ,
> in order to combat Kurdish KPP .
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228119 ] |
Fr, 21 Juli 2006 19:51 |
|
I believe you will find K Harria's letter below more representative of
worldwide opinion (worldwide meaning anyone not Israeli or neocon US).
At present no country dares to utter these sentiments because the US
is still the only hyperpower militarily and economically. Situations
will change with time. Insofar as Israel is concerned her fate will
be decided by
1. The oil in the mid East be depleted early by accelerated pumping
and not proceeding with new oil exploration or developments. This
will be painful to the oil producing countries. But they should plan
for this eventuality anyway for it will come anyway. Without oil the
US had no interest in the MidEast and a useful proxy like the Israelis
can be left to survive on her own.
2. A popular revolt in Saudi Arabia that will result in a new regime
not willing to sell Saudi oil to the US. Of course this regime will
have to continue selling oil to the US at first or risk being wiped
out by the US and Israel. It will have to find an imaginative
diplomatic excuse five or more years down the line to cut off supply.
If Saudi Arabia can cut of the oil supply as a sovreign country can do
with its assets there is nothing to stop other Arab countries from
doing the same or face the wrath of their own people. SA the key to
the whole US MidEast strategy. If SA falls everything else will. SA
is very vulnerable. Her rulers are unpopular and out of touch with
her people. All it needs is a popular revolt with the right slogans
about democracy, equality, representation, human rights, goodwill to
the world (which SA has little of at present) and with the armed
forces declaring for the revolt and the rulers will be out with no
recourse to call in foreign forces to restore their rule. Even if the
coup fails because of US intervention it will create an impossible
situation for the US to run the Saudi oil production while the country
is in revolt.
K Harria's letter reads
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Letters.html
I am a frequent reader your website, particularly with respect to your
coverage of Middle East affairs. I think you are doing very good work.
Regarding Middle East affairs, I think people are not highlighting
some of the basic issues of the conflict. The first and foremost fact
is that Israel is an illegal country. The country was thrust upon the
local native populations by the big powers after Second World War
without any compunction with respect to natural justice with the
active connivance of the nascent UN to give it some iota of
legitimacy. People (ie unwanted, problematic Jews) were imported from
other countries and an illegal, unjust artificially created country
made for them to inhabit, completely displacing and deporting native
populations which did not have any military strength at that time to
repel such a measure. It is clear that the real purpose of the
creation UN (with its undemocratic veto structure) was shielding
Israel from questions about its illegal creation and existence. All
other humanitarian endeavors of the UN are just a smokescreen to hide
its real purpose ... All these years Israel was in the process of
illegal land grabbing with unjustly enacted laws (all in the name of
religious faith, which the Western media will not highlight, unlike
that of al-Qaeda). It's also very interesting in the current conflict
between Hezbollah and Israel [that] the boundaries between Israel and
Lebanon are presented as internationally recognized boundaries when in
reality these are illegally occupied by the Israelis with military
might provided by the West ... People in the East are alive to these
issues and even if they don't have the military strength, they will
fight and resist until justice is done to them. In my opinion it's
very unlikely this injustice to Palestinians can be continued. A more
likely scenario will be that Israel will not survive this century and
will be wiped out from the Middle East map very [much] sooner than
expected. It's also well documented that in the US and the cowardly
and colonial Europe, Israel is painted as the victim and people are
presented a very biased, false side of the conflict. If terrorism is
visiting the people in the West, they cannot claim innocence because
the policies their governments are following are approved by them,
either with their ignorance or deliberately.
K Harria
Bangalore, India (Jul 21, '06)
===========================================================
On 21 Jul 2006 06:45:55 -0700, perryneheum [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>
>And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>"fightin' terr'ism."
>
>Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>Afganistan and Iraq, due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
>laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>
>No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
>caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
>Afghanistan.
>
>============
>
>=====
>Komin wrote:
>> the US president [ who has been advised by the AIPAC ] is
>> calling calling for a Regime Change in Syria , the Isreali is
>> destabilising Lebanon .
>>
>> Both the US and the Israeli government are planning for the
>> Balkanisation of the Iraqi, Syrian and the Lebanese states .
>>
>> Will Turkey agrees to this US vision ?
>>
>> the Turks want to send Turkish soldiers into Northern Iraq ,
>> in order to combat Kurdish KPP .
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228134 ] |
Fr, 21 Juli 2006 23:15 |
|
ppp [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> I believe you will find K Harria's letter below more representative of
> worldwide opinion (worldwide meaning anyone not Israeli or neocon US).
What about PRC?
> At present no country dares to utter these sentiments because the US
> is still the only hyperpower militarily and economically.
What about PRC? Are you claiming PRC does not genuinely believe in or
will honor its commitments under the UN Charter?
> Situations
> will change with time.
Are you saying that in the future PRC plans to ignore its
responsibilities as a member of the United Nations Security Council
which recognizes Israel as a member state?
>Insofar as Israel is concerned her fate ...
Please tell us what other nations presently recognized as sovereign by
the United Nations will not be recognized in the future by PRC ... and
that secretly PRC does not recognize even at the present time.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228137 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 00:44 |
|
demorising [at] aol.com wrote:
> ppp [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> > I believe you will find K Harria's letter below more representative of
> > worldwide opinion (worldwide meaning anyone not Israeli or neocon US).
>
> What about PRC?
>
> > At present no country dares to utter these sentiments because the US
> > is still the only hyperpower militarily and economically.
>
> What about PRC? Are you claiming PRC does not genuinely believe in or
> will honor its commitments under the UN Charter?
>
> > Situations
> > will change with time.
>
> Are you saying that in the future PRC plans to ignore its
> responsibilities as a member of the United Nations Security Council
> which recognizes Israel as a member state?
Does Israel respect UN and UN resolutions?
>
> >Insofar as Israel is concerned her fate ...
>
> Please tell us what other nations presently recognized as sovereign by
> the United Nations will not be recognized in the future by PRC ... and
> that secretly PRC does not recognize even at the present time.
Do you think not respecting UN resolution is not respecting all UN
member nations?
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228155 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 02:15 |
|
> Do you think not respecting UN resolution is not respecting all UN
> member nations?
ltlee:
It is fair to say ....
That no one respects UN. The venerable organization managed
to passed one resolution after another, but enforced none. And
the credibility of that most distinguished world body is near zero.
It's rather sobering that even African countries do not trust UN.
Mr. Simon Deng, a former Sudanese slave turned human rights
activist, gave powerful and poignant testimonial on the effacacy
of the UN peacekeeping force in Darfour. In his opinion, served
no useful purpose and actually made the situation in that part of
the world worse than it had to be. The USA is far more effective
without the UN, and, many advocated ceasing her membership.
Surely, the world's sole super power has enough of hard as well
as soft mights to rearrange the world order.
And to impose her will globally ....
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Montecito/Santa Ysabel, California, USA.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228160 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 02:41 |
|
Albert K. Fung wrote:
> > Do you think not respecting UN resolution is not respecting all UN
> > member nations?
>
> ltlee:
>
> It is fair to say ....
>
> That no one respects UN. The venerable organization managed
> to passed one resolution after another, but enforced none. And
> the credibility of that most distinguished world body is near zero.
>
> It's rather sobering that even African countries do not trust UN.
>
> Mr. Simon Deng, a former Sudanese slave turned human rights
> activist, gave powerful and poignant testimonial on the effacacy
> of the UN peacekeeping force in Darfour. In his opinion, served
> no useful purpose and actually made the situation in that part of
> the world worse than it had to be. The USA is far more effective
> without the UN, and, many advocated ceasing her membership.
> Surely, the world's sole super power has enough of hard as well
> as soft mights to rearrange the world order.
>
> And to impose her will globally ....
UN is supposed to bring the biggest possible win-win. It is a difficult
job by itself. The job is made more difficult because the superpower/s
frequently did not actually want win-win.
American unilateralism, another word for its particularized foreign
policy which has a long tradition, though effecient in the short run,
is not effective for her to keep her position as world leader. To be
an effective leader, she must keep win-win as her goal all the time.
As for soft power, America does not really have a lot of soft power.
Western culture, however, is considered more advanced culture. Soft
power currently accorded to America belonged to all western countries
at a whole. At present, America is at odd with other western countries.
The percieved soft power will disappear rapidly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert K. Fung
> Montecito/Santa Ysabel, California, USA.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228164 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 03:00 |
|
ppp:
> I believe you will find K Harria's letter below more representative of
> worldwide opinion (worldwide meaning anyone not Israeli or neocon US).
> At present no country dares to utter these sentiments because the US
> is still the only hyperpower militarily and economically. Situations
> will change with time. Insofar as Israel is concerned her fate will
> be decided by
> 1. The oil in the mid East be depleted early by accelerated pumping
> and not proceeding with new oil exploration or developments. This
> will be painful to the oil producing countries. But they should plan
> for this eventuality anyway for it will come anyway. Without oil the
> US had no interest in the MidEast and a useful proxy like the Israelis
> can be left to survive on her own.
> 2. A popular revolt in Saudi Arabia that will result in a new regime
> not willing to sell Saudi oil to the US. Of course this regime will
> have to continue selling oil to the US at first or risk being wiped
> out by the US and Israel. It will have to find an imaginative
> diplomatic excuse five or more years down the line to cut off supply.
> If Saudi Arabia can cut of the oil supply as a sovreign country can do
> with its assets there is nothing to stop other Arab countries from
> doing the same or face the wrath of their own people. SA the key to
> the whole US MidEast strategy. If SA falls everything else will. SA
> is very vulnerable. Her rulers are unpopular and out of touch with
> her people. All it needs is a popular revolt with the right slogans
> about democracy, equality, representation, human rights, goodwill to
> the world (which SA has little of at present) and with the armed
> forces declaring for the revolt and the rulers will be out with no
> recourse to call in foreign forces to restore their rule. Even if the
> coup fails because of US intervention it will create an impossible
> situation for the US to run the Saudi oil production while the country
> is in revolt.
Just a FYI ....
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country 5/06 4/06 YTD/06 5/05 1-5/05
CANADA 2,319 2,238 2,277 2,188 2,123
MEXICO 1,710 1,750 1,785 1,826 1,640
SAUDI ARABIA 1,490 1,595 1,453 1,526 1,573
VENEZUELA 1,470 1,393 1,482 1,574 1,582
NIGERIA 1,189 1,098 1,207 1,214 1,134
IRAQ 666 531 533 588 536
ALGERIA 643 543 552 449 431
RUSSIA 616 218 317 325 445
VIRGIN ISLANDS 373 239 301 367 327
ANGOLA 368 419 443 353 446
UNITED KINGDOM 349 315 272 345 361
NETHERLANDS 259 161 178 178 109
ECUADOR 246 319 285 238 294
KUWAIT 226 225 160 219 196
COLOMBIA 204 176 183 176 161
Import from all Middle East countries combined (Saudia Arabia
+ Iraq + Kuwait) is less than 10% of US consumption. And she
does not use any Iranian oil. Pipelines are now under construc-
tion between Canada and the USA. The goal is increase import
from Canada in the next decade.
BTW: The USA purchases all of her oil from the open market.
That means she bids against every one else equally for every
barrel of oil which goes to the highest bidder. Politically, in the
coming decades, there will likely be increasing pressure not to
use fossil fuel, a mandate to mitigate global warming. Blissful
ignorance is admirable.
But one must refrain from substituting it for facts .... :)
Regards,
Albert K. Fung
Montecito/Santa Ysabel, California, USA.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228173 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 03:31 |
|
communists' dogs are full of their head with win-win,
because they can put the loss to 1.3 billion mainlanders.
no countries other than such communist as PRC can do,
as the politicans need the voters' vote !!!!!
soft power is a means of cheating !
that is why communists have to share the blood and sweat of the 1.3 billion
mainlanders squeezed to feed too many communists' dogs as this ltlee1, mbl*
..... etc !!!!
ltlee1 wrote:
> Albert K. Fung wrote:
>
>>>Do you think not respecting UN resolution is not respecting all UN
>>>member nations?
>>
>>ltlee:
>>
>>It is fair to say ....
>>
>>That no one respects UN. The venerable organization managed
>>to passed one resolution after another, but enforced none. And
>>the credibility of that most distinguished world body is near zero.
>>
>>It's rather sobering that even African countries do not trust UN.
>>
>>Mr. Simon Deng, a former Sudanese slave turned human rights
>>activist, gave powerful and poignant testimonial on the effacacy
>>of the UN peacekeeping force in Darfour. In his opinion, served
>>no useful purpose and actually made the situation in that part of
>>the world worse than it had to be. The USA is far more effective
>>without the UN, and, many advocated ceasing her membership.
>>Surely, the world's sole super power has enough of hard as well
>>as soft mights to rearrange the world order.
>>
>>And to impose her will globally ....
>
>
> UN is supposed to bring the biggest possible win-win. It is a difficult
> job by itself. The job is made more difficult because the superpower/s
> frequently did not actually want win-win.
>
> American unilateralism, another word for its particularized foreign
> policy which has a long tradition, though effecient in the short run,
> is not effective for her to keep her position as world leader. To be
> an effective leader, she must keep win-win as her goal all the time.
>
> As for soft power, America does not really have a lot of soft power.
> Western culture, however, is considered more advanced culture. Soft
> power currently accorded to America belonged to all western countries
> at a whole. At present, America is at odd with other western countries.
> The percieved soft power will disappear rapidly.
>
>
>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Albert K. Fung
>>Montecito/Santa Ysabel, California, USA.
>
>
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to news [at] netfront.net
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228198 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 03:04 |
|
in free countries (not communism) military force threats no one !!!
the world keep silence is just because they saw clearly the terrorist face
of islam.
amongst the ants, the only way is to burn off the ant-cave !!!
if not, really hard to subsist !!!!
ppp [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> I believe you will find K Harria's letter below more representative of
> worldwide opinion (worldwide meaning anyone not Israeli or neocon US).
> At present no country dares to utter these sentiments because the US
> is still the only hyperpower militarily and economically. Situations
> will change with time. Insofar as Israel is concerned her fate will
> be decided by
> 1. The oil in the mid East be depleted early by accelerated pumping
> and not proceeding with new oil exploration or developments. This
> will be painful to the oil producing countries. But they should plan
> for this eventuality anyway for it will come anyway. Without oil the
> US had no interest in the MidEast and a useful proxy like the Israelis
> can be left to survive on her own.
> 2. A popular revolt in Saudi Arabia that will result in a new regime
> not willing to sell Saudi oil to the US. Of course this regime will
> have to continue selling oil to the US at first or risk being wiped
> out by the US and Israel. It will have to find an imaginative
> diplomatic excuse five or more years down the line to cut off supply.
> If Saudi Arabia can cut of the oil supply as a sovreign country can do
> with its assets there is nothing to stop other Arab countries from
> doing the same or face the wrath of their own people. SA the key to
> the whole US MidEast strategy. If SA falls everything else will. SA
> is very vulnerable. Her rulers are unpopular and out of touch with
> her people. All it needs is a popular revolt with the right slogans
> about democracy, equality, representation, human rights, goodwill to
> the world (which SA has little of at present) and with the armed
> forces declaring for the revolt and the rulers will be out with no
> recourse to call in foreign forces to restore their rule. Even if the
> coup fails because of US intervention it will create an impossible
> situation for the US to run the Saudi oil production while the country
> is in revolt.
>
> K Harria's letter reads
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Letters.html
>
> I am a frequent reader your website, particularly with respect to your
> coverage of Middle East affairs. I think you are doing very good work.
> Regarding Middle East affairs, I think people are not highlighting
> some of the basic issues of the conflict. The first and foremost fact
> is that Israel is an illegal country. The country was thrust upon the
> local native populations by the big powers after Second World War
> without any compunction with respect to natural justice with the
> active connivance of the nascent UN to give it some iota of
> legitimacy. People (ie unwanted, problematic Jews) were imported from
> other countries and an illegal, unjust artificially created country
> made for them to inhabit, completely displacing and deporting native
> populations which did not have any military strength at that time to
> repel such a measure. It is clear that the real purpose of the
> creation UN (with its undemocratic veto structure) was shielding
> Israel from questions about its illegal creation and existence. All
> other humanitarian endeavors of the UN are just a smokescreen to hide
> its real purpose ... All these years Israel was in the process of
> illegal land grabbing with unjustly enacted laws (all in the name of
> religious faith, which the Western media will not highlight, unlike
> that of al-Qaeda). It's also very interesting in the current conflict
> between Hezbollah and Israel [that] the boundaries between Israel and
> Lebanon are presented as internationally recognized boundaries when in
> reality these are illegally occupied by the Israelis with military
> might provided by the West ... People in the East are alive to these
> issues and even if they don't have the military strength, they will
> fight and resist until justice is done to them. In my opinion it's
> very unlikely this injustice to Palestinians can be continued. A more
> likely scenario will be that Israel will not survive this century and
> will be wiped out from the Middle East map very [much] sooner than
> expected. It's also well documented that in the US and the cowardly
> and colonial Europe, Israel is painted as the victim and people are
> presented a very biased, false side of the conflict. If terrorism is
> visiting the people in the West, they cannot claim innocence because
> the policies their governments are following are approved by them,
> either with their ignorance or deliberately.
> K Harria
> Bangalore, India (Jul 21, '06)
>
>
>
> ===========================================================
> On 21 Jul 2006 06:45:55 -0700, perryneheum [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>>bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>>States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>>of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>>
>>And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>>not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>>not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>>"fightin' terr'ism."
>>
>>Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>>Afganistan and Iraq, due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>>U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>>threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
>>laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>>dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>>semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>>
>>No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
>>caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
>>Afghanistan.
>>
>>============
>>
>>=====
>>Komin wrote:
>>
>>>the US president [ who has been advised by the AIPAC ] is
>>>calling calling for a Regime Change in Syria , the Isreali is
>>>destabilising Lebanon .
>>>
>>>Both the US and the Israeli government are planning for the
>>>Balkanisation of the Iraqi, Syrian and the Lebanese states .
>>>
>>>Will Turkey agrees to this US vision ?
>>>
>>>the Turks want to send Turkish soldiers into Northern Iraq ,
>>>in order to combat Kurdish KPP .
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to news [at] netfront.net
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228210 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 07:10 |
|
On 21 Jul 2006 17:15:13 -0700, "Albert K. Fung" <akwfung [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Mr. Simon Deng, a former Sudanese slave turned human rights
>activist, gave powerful and poignant testimonial on the effacacy
>of the UN peacekeeping force in Darfour. In his opinion, served
>no useful purpose and actually made the situation in that part of
>the world worse than it had to be.
I chatted to this Somalian taxi driver on the way back from the
airport. He was a refugee with only Somalian high school education
and was very fortunate to be given refugee status to Canada. We did
the usual exchange on how wonderful and peaceful Canada is and what a
contract it must have been from the troubles of Somalia. Then it came
down to his ambition, he wants to study because that is how he will
get ahead. But he cannot do so because he had been holding down at
least two to three jobs to earn money so that he can bring his
brothers, sisters, parents and an assortment of relatives over to
Canada, a total of 14 so far. That why he is so adamant that his
younger brothers finish school before they think of anything else. He
has been back to Somalia three times, the latest to get married. It
was indeed a very inspiring personal story. Then the question comes
is why is there so much conflict in Africa. His answer was that it
began when the Soviet Union fell apart. The US started sponsoring an
assortment of warlords in the name of democracy. Of course the US
soon found that they had uncontrollable devils on their hands and
abandoned them to sponsor another and another. Africa has been in
turmoil ever since. The UN never had a chance.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228272 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 12:51 |
|
<perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>
> And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> "fightin' terr'ism."
It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
> Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> Afganistan and Iraq,
No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
"trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they first
thing about what you are talking about.
>due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
> U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
> threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
> laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
> dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
> semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a war
with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not involved
in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by people who think
the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that war
would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they would
not be needed to defeat China. Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria would
be a simple matter by comparison. They are minor nations of insigfificant
military power incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United
States.
You really are a complete lunatic, aren't you?
> No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
> caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
> Afghanistan.
George Bush hasn't killed anybody, Ossama Bin Laden is responsible for all
of the deaths that happen in the war that he started.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228274 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 12:57 |
|
the Turkish army is preparing to enter northern Iraq , to fight
the PKK>
Iran will keep the US military busy for a long time .
Congressman Murtha is saying the truth about China ,
which wants the US military to be bogged down in the United
states of Iraq .
Iraq has 3 states , the Kurdish state ,the Sunni state and the Shi-ite
state .
Kavik Kang wrote:
> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> >
> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> > "fightin' terr'ism."
>
> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>
>
> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> > Afganistan and Iraq,
>
> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they first
> thing about what you are talking about.
>
>
> >due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
> > U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
> > threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
> > laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
> > dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
> > semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>
> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a war
> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not involved
> in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by people who think
> the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that war
> would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
> troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they would
> not be needed to defeat China. Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria would
> be a simple matter by comparison. They are minor nations of insigfificant
> military power incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United
> States.
>
> You really are a complete lunatic, aren't you?
>
>
> > No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
> > caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
> > Afghanistan.
>
> George Bush hasn't killed anybody, Ossama Bin Laden is responsible for all
> of the deaths that happen in the war that he started.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228287 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 13:51 |
|
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fqnwg.3046$157.2264 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>> bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>> States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>> of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>>
>> And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>> not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>> not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>> "fightin' terr'ism."
>
> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>
>
>> Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>> Afganistan and Iraq,
>
> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they first
> thing about what you are talking about.
>
>
>>due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>> U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>> threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
>> laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>> dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>> semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>
> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a war
> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not
> involved in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by
> people who think the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us
> tonight, that war would be over in months and China would lose it very,
> very bad. All US troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where
> they are, they would not be needed to defeat China. Obviously, dealing
> with Iran and Syria would be a simple matter by comparison. They are
> minor nations of insigfificant military power incapable of surviving three
> weeks of war with the United States
Where the fuck do you get his rubbish, noodles? You can't just "make it up".
It's got to be a project of a huge group of deluded fuckwits. No single
person who is sane, is capable of making these outlandishly ridiculous
predictions.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228290 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 14:17 |
|
"Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153565853.908959.14430 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> the Turkish army is preparing to enter northern Iraq , to fight
> the PKK>
No they aren't, not unless they want a taste of what the US Air Force is
capable of...
> Iran will keep the US military busy for a long time .
If you consider three weeks a long time, I guess so...
> Congressman Murtha is saying the truth about China ,
> which wants the US military to be bogged down in the United
> states of Iraq .
Well, since we have "complete and total freedom of movement and total
military control over the entire nation", which is the exact opposite of
being "bogged down", thing will have to change a whole lot for their
"glorious vision" to come true, won't they?
> Iraq has 3 states , the Kurdish state ,the Sunni state and the Shi-ite
> state .
That's really nifty... what does it have to do with the discussion, again?
By the way, you didn't actually respond to anything I had said... you must
not have had a response, so you top posted to avoid having to give one...
> Kavik Kang wrote:
>> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>> >
>> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>> > "fightin' terr'ism."
>>
>> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>>
>>
>> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>> > Afganistan and Iraq,
>>
>> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
>> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
>> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
>> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
>> first
>> thing about what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>> >due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>> > U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>> > threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
>> > laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>> > dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>> > semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>>
>> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
>> war
>> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
>> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not
>> involved
>> in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by people who
>> think
>> the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that
>> war
>> would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
>> troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they
>> would
>> not be needed to defeat China. Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria
>> would
>> be a simple matter by comparison. They are minor nations of
>> insigfificant
>> military power incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United
>> States.
>>
>> You really are a complete lunatic, aren't you?
>>
>>
>> > No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
>> > caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
>> > Afghanistan.
>>
>> George Bush hasn't killed anybody, Ossama Bin Laden is responsible for
>> all
>> of the deaths that happen in the war that he started.
>
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228292 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 14:24 |
|
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencramer7 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9t3g2$2kkm$1 [at] otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> "Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Fqnwg.3046$157.2264 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>>> bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>>> States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>>> of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>>>
>>> And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>>> not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>>> not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>>> "fightin' terr'ism."
>>
>> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>>> Afganistan and Iraq,
>>
>> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
>> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
>> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
>> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
>> first thing about what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>>>due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>>> U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>>> threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
>>> laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>>> dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>>> semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>>
>> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
>> war with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all
>> of them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not
>> involved in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by
>> people who think the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us
>> tonight, that war would be over in months and China would lose it very,
>> very bad. All US troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where
>> they are, they would not be needed to defeat China. Obviously, dealing
>> with Iran and Syria would be a simple matter by comparison. They are
>> minor nations of insigfificant military power incapable of surviving
>> three weeks of war with the United States
>
> Where the fuck do you get his rubbish, noodles? You can't just "make it
> up". It's got to be a project of a huge group of deluded fuckwits. No
> single person who is sane, is capable of making these outlandishly
> ridiculous predictions.
It's not a "predcition", only about 10% of the US military is in Iraq. That
is not a prediction, it is a statement of reality. What are you babbling
about?
As for China, retaining enough unused military force to defeat China in a
matter of months is the cornerstone of current US defense planning and has
been since before 911 even happened. We always retain enough unused force
to defeat China in a matter of months at all times. That is, in fact, what
would trigger a draft. If we needed use more force in other areas than was
possible without retaining the ability to defeat China in a matter of
months, that is what would trigger a draft. If you actually knew anything
at all about these subjects you endlessly babble about, you would know this
already. It's like "101" level stuff.
Oh, by the way, we can easily defeat the entire middle east simultaniously
while retaining enough unused force to defeat China in a matter of months.
A collection of minor nations of insigificant military power does not
present a challenge to the US military. It really and truly is closer to an
excersize than an actual war.
Your fantasy land sure is an odd place, in your fantasy land we sure were
lucky the Russians never attacked, weren't we? In your fantasy land they
would have defeated us in a matter of hours. Welcome back to reality,
President of Fantasy Land...
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228297 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 15:28 |
|
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Howg.3095$157.2044 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153565853.908959.14430 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> the Turkish army is preparing to enter northern Iraq , to fight
>> the PKK>
>
> No they aren't, not unless they want a taste of what the US Air Force is
> capable of...
>
>
>> Iran will keep the US military busy for a long time .
>
> If you consider three weeks a long time, I guess so...
>
>
>> Congressman Murtha is saying the truth about China ,
>> which wants the US military to be bogged down in the United
>> states of Iraq .
>
> Well, since we have "complete and total freedom of movement and total
> military control over the entire nation", which is the exact opposite of
> being "bogged down", thing will have to change a whole lot for their
> "glorious vision" to come true, won't they?
When ya gonna win a war the, noodles?
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228298 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 15:30 |
|
Kavik Kang wrote:
> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> >
> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> > "fightin' terr'ism."
>
> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>
>
> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> > Afganistan and Iraq,
>
> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they first
> thing about what you are talking about.
Pinned down politically, not physically.
Of course, America can withdraw the troops at any time. But then the
invasion will gain America nothing and more likely hurt America
politically.
>
>
> >due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
> > U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
> > threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
> > laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
> > dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
> > semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>
> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a war
> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not involved
> in any conflict, moron.
In discussions concerning naval platforms, the term "duty cycle" often
comes up. Ships need repair and upgrade all the time. Hence if the
navy need 3 submarine on station all the time, altogether 6 submarines
may be needed. In this case, the submarines have a duty cylce of 50%.
The same concept could be applid to soldiers. Hence, the military need
more than 130,000 soldiers in order to keep 130,000 soldiers in Iraq.
In addition, 130,000 soldiers in Iraq usually means more than 130,000
in Iraq. It could be as large as 200,000. Troops are always rotating
in and out. It takes months to send a large army in. It also take
months to ship them home. No logistic department has found a way to
exactly match the in units with the out units. And of course,
military bass always prefer more troops if possible. So the actual
troop level in Iraq is usually higher.
You can also read the following article to appreciate the strain the
Iraq has been placing on the military.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/12/troops_numbers/
> I will never cease to be amazed by people who think
> the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that war
> would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
> troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they would
> not be needed to defeat China.
As is, America will be overstretched to fight Iran.
> Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria would
> be a simple matter by comparison. They are minor nations of insigfificant
> military power incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United
> States.
>
> You really are a complete lunatic, aren't you?
>
>
> > No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
> > caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
> > Afghanistan.
>
> George Bush hasn't killed anybody, Ossama Bin Laden is responsible for all
> of the deaths that happen in the war that he started.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228302 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 15:47 |
|
"Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NNowg.8237$vO.3436 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencramer7 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e9t3g2$2kkm$1 [at] otis.netspace.net.au...
>>
>> "Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Fqnwg.3046$157.2264 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>>>> bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>>>> States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>>>> of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>>>>
>>>> And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>>>> not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>>>> not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>>>> "fightin' terr'ism."
>>>
>>> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>>>> Afganistan and Iraq,
>>>
>>> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which
>>> is the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who
>>> are "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die
>>> almost instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know
>>> they first thing about what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>>>due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>>>> U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>>>> threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
>>>> laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>>>> dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>>>> semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>>>
>>> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
>>> war with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat
>>> all of them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is
>>> not involved in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by
>>> people who think the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked
>>> us tonight, that war would be over in months and China would lose it
>>> very, very bad. All US troops currently involved in conflicts could
>>> stay where they are, they would not be needed to defeat China.
>>> Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria would be a simple matter by
>>> comparison. They are minor nations of insigfificant military power
>>> incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United States
>>
>> Where the fuck do you get his rubbish, noodles? You can't just "make it
>> up". It's got to be a project of a huge group of deluded fuckwits. No
>> single person who is sane, is capable of making these outlandishly
>> ridiculous predictions.
>
> It's not a "predcition", only about 10% of the US military is in Iraq.
> That is not a prediction, it is a statement of reality. What are you
> babbling about?
How about answering the first part of the question, i.e. "Where the fuck do
you get this rubbish"?
>
> As for China, retaining enough unused military force to defeat China in a
> matter of months is the cornerstone of current US defense planning and has
> been since before 911 even happened. We always retain enough unused force
> to defeat China in a matter of months at all times. That is, in fact,
> what would trigger a draft. If we needed use more force in other areas
> than was possible without retaining the ability to defeat China in a
> matter of months, that is what would trigger a draft. If you actually
> knew anything at all about these subjects you endlessly babble about, you
> would know this already. It's like "101" level stuff.
>
> Oh, by the way, we can easily defeat the entire middle east simultaniously
> while retaining enough unused force to defeat China in a matter of months.
> A collection of minor nations of insigificant military power does not
> present a challenge to the US military. It really and truly is closer to
> an excersize than an actual war.
>
> Your fantasy land sure is an odd place, in your fantasy land we sure were
> lucky the Russians never attacked, weren't we? In your fantasy land they
> would have defeated us in a matter of hours. Welcome back to reality,
> President of Fantasy Land...
I have no fantasy land, laddie. Very much a realist, me.
Based on the yanks previous pathetic attempts at trying to win wars, I'm
still buggered if I can understand where your jingoism comes from. You've no
previous successes to base it on.
>
>
|
|
|
| America trapped in Iraq Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228304 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 16:13 |
|
Kavik Kang wrote:
> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> >
> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> > "fightin' terr'ism."
>
> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>
>
> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> > Afganistan and Iraq,
>
> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they first
> thing about what you are talking about.
The following is excerpted from an article by German's former Foreign
minister. It explains the dilemma of America as well as the world.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,druck-418515,00.html
----------------------
>From this there resulted a second question: If the US entered Iraq with
superior military might but with a lack of political support, then how
were they going to leave again within a manageable timeframe without
leaving behind a highly explosive vacuum? This question is still
unanswered today. Because these questions were foreseeable, warnings
against going to war were issued from various sides. The occupation of
Iraq and the toppling of the dictator Saddam Hussein had to lead either
to a great realignment of the entire Middle East or create a vacuum
that would threaten to endanger the cohesion of Iraq, trigger a civil
war and draw the most important regional powers into this war.
There is a third question that should not be forgotten. The toppling of
Saddam Hussein by the US would shift the power balance among the
regional powers in a decisive way, unless that power balance was
adjusted and hence neutralized by the lasting presence of the US as the
new Middle Eastern hegemonic power. The US approach of attempting to
make the war in Iraq the trigger for regional realignment on the basis
of democratization and free elections could not but turn the old power
relations between Arabs and Kurds, between the Sunni minority -- which
is also the traditional power elite -- and the Shiite majority on their
heads. For democracy means the rule of the majority determined by free
elections, and the Shiites make up the majority in Iraq.
That also made it clear from the start that Tehran's influence on the
fate of Iraq would rise disproportionately, and that Iran threatened to
become the genuine regional winner of the war in Iraq if the US lost
control over events on the ground or if the feared power vacuum were to
be created by a US retreat. The current development in Iraq is leading
very quickly into this disastrous direction. The urgent question of how
to prevent a situation in which the US, with its policy in Iraq,
unintentionally makes itself an agent of the implementation of Iranian
interests, thereby decisively strengthening Iran, was in fact never
answered by Washington.
The power vacuum the US threatens to leave behind in the region in the
case of a withdrawal from Iraq will draw all regional powers involved
into a struggle over hegemony in Iraq and in the region. The first
regional power that needs to be mentioned in this regard is Iran; the
second is Israel, and the third Turkey. Without a doubt Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states will not sit idly by. They
currently find themselves in a weak position, both structurally and in
terms of their specific current situations. Moreover, they are
threatening to become the next hot spots of the conflict over hegemony
in the Near East triggered by the war in Iraq. In order to understand
the tremendous strategic danger of the Iranian nuclear program, which
is doubtless aimed at making Iran a nuclear power in the military
sense, one has to consider this possible hegemonic confrontation
between Israel and Iran.
Israel will interpret the Iranian bomb both as a threat to its
existence and as a hegemonic challenge, and this constellation contains
within it the danger of a highly explosive crisis. But Turkey, Egypt,
Saudi Arabia and all the other states in the region will not sit idly
by either as Iran pursues Near Eastern hegemony by means of its nuclear
program, so that there is the risk that there will at least be a
nuclear arms race in the Near East. This alone would be nightmare
enough.
Nonetheless, realism requires one to assume that this risk of a
struggle over regional hegemony, a risk that assumes a nuclear
dimension with Iran, will bring about a situation that triggers a
military confrontation that none of the powers involved wants, but into
which they will nonetheless find themselves sliding - by virtue of the
chaotic automatism of the power relations and the high power political
stakes. What is more, there is already a danger today that Tehran will
overestimate its own strength and underestimates American power,
thereby reaching the wrong conclusions -- conclusions with a
dangerously escalating effect.
--------------------------
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228359 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 02:58 |
|
Kavik Kang ,
you are a waste of time .
the US military is bogged down in Iraq ,
like it was in Vietnam .
Kavik Kang wrote:
> "Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153565853.908959.14430 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > the Turkish army is preparing to enter northern Iraq , to fight
> > the PKK>
>
> No they aren't, not unless they want a taste of what the US Air Force is
> capable of...
>
>
> > Iran will keep the US military busy for a long time .
>
> If you consider three weeks a long time, I guess so...
>
>
> > Congressman Murtha is saying the truth about China ,
> > which wants the US military to be bogged down in the United
> > states of Iraq .
>
> Well, since we have "complete and total freedom of movement and total
> military control over the entire nation", which is the exact opposite of
> being "bogged down", thing will have to change a whole lot for their
> "glorious vision" to come true, won't they?
>
>
> > Iraq has 3 states , the Kurdish state ,the Sunni state and the Shi-ite
> > state .
>
> That's really nifty... what does it have to do with the discussion, again?
>
> By the way, you didn't actually respond to anything I had said... you must
> not have had a response, so you top posted to avoid having to give one...
>
>
> > Kavik Kang wrote:
> >> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> >> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> >> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> >> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> >> >
> >> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> >> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> >> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> >> > "fightin' terr'ism."
> >>
> >> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> >> > Afganistan and Iraq,
> >>
> >> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> >> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> >> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> >> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
> >> first
> >> thing about what you are talking about.
> >>
> >>
> >> >due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
> >> > U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
> >> > threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
> >> > laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
> >> > dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
> >> > semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
> >>
> >> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
> >> war
> >> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
> >> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not
> >> involved
> >> in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by people who
> >> think
> >> the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that
> >> war
> >> would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
> >> troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they
> >> would
> >> not be needed to defeat China. Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria
> >> would
> >> be a simple matter by comparison. They are minor nations of
> >> insigfificant
> >> military power incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United
> >> States.
> >>
> >> You really are a complete lunatic, aren't you?
> >>
> >>
> >> > No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
> >> > caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
> >> > Afghanistan.
> >>
> >> George Bush hasn't killed anybody, Ossama Bin Laden is responsible for
> >> all
> >> of the deaths that happen in the war that he started.
> >
|
|
|
| Re: America trapped in Iraq Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan [message #228360 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 03:01 |
|
Iraq is costing the US 11 million dollars every hour ,
ltlee1 wrote:
> Kavik Kang wrote:
> > <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> > > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> > > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> > > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> > >
> > > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> > > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> > > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> > > "fightin' terr'ism."
> >
> > It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
> >
> >
> > > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> > > Afganistan and Iraq,
> >
> > No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> > the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> > "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> > instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they first
> > thing about what you are talking about.
>
> The following is excerpted from an article by German's former Foreign
> minister. It explains the dilemma of America as well as the world.
>
> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,druck-418515,00.html
>
> ----------------------
> >From this there resulted a second question: If the US entered Iraq with
> superior military might but with a lack of political support, then how
> were they going to leave again within a manageable timeframe without
> leaving behind a highly explosive vacuum? This question is still
> unanswered today. Because these questions were foreseeable, warnings
> against going to war were issued from various sides. The occupation of
> Iraq and the toppling of the dictator Saddam Hussein had to lead either
> to a great realignment of the entire Middle East or create a vacuum
> that would threaten to endanger the cohesion of Iraq, trigger a civil
> war and draw the most important regional powers into this war.
>
> There is a third question that should not be forgotten. The toppling of
> Saddam Hussein by the US would shift the power balance among the
> regional powers in a decisive way, unless that power balance was
> adjusted and hence neutralized by the lasting presence of the US as the
> new Middle Eastern hegemonic power. The US approach of attempting to
> make the war in Iraq the trigger for regional realignment on the basis
> of democratization and free elections could not but turn the old power
> relations between Arabs and Kurds, between the Sunni minority -- which
> is also the traditional power elite -- and the Shiite majority on their
> heads. For democracy means the rule of the majority determined by free
> elections, and the Shiites make up the majority in Iraq.
>
> That also made it clear from the start that Tehran's influence on the
> fate of Iraq would rise disproportionately, and that Iran threatened to
> become the genuine regional winner of the war in Iraq if the US lost
> control over events on the ground or if the feared power vacuum were to
> be created by a US retreat. The current development in Iraq is leading
> very quickly into this disastrous direction. The urgent question of how
> to prevent a situation in which the US, with its policy in Iraq,
> unintentionally makes itself an agent of the implementation of Iranian
> interests, thereby decisively strengthening Iran, was in fact never
> answered by Washington.
>
> The power vacuum the US threatens to leave behind in the region in the
> case of a withdrawal from Iraq will draw all regional powers involved
> into a struggle over hegemony in Iraq and in the region. The first
> regional power that needs to be mentioned in this regard is Iran; the
> second is Israel, and the third Turkey. Without a doubt Saudi Arabia,
> Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states will not sit idly by. They
> currently find themselves in a weak position, both structurally and in
> terms of their specific current situations. Moreover, they are
> threatening to become the next hot spots of the conflict over hegemony
> in the Near East triggered by the war in Iraq. In order to understand
> the tremendous strategic danger of the Iranian nuclear program, which
> is doubtless aimed at making Iran a nuclear power in the military
> sense, one has to consider this possible hegemonic confrontation
> between Israel and Iran.
>
> Israel will interpret the Iranian bomb both as a threat to its
> existence and as a hegemonic challenge, and this constellation contains
> within it the danger of a highly explosive crisis. But Turkey, Egypt,
> Saudi Arabia and all the other states in the region will not sit idly
> by either as Iran pursues Near Eastern hegemony by means of its nuclear
> program, so that there is the risk that there will at least be a
> nuclear arms race in the Near East. This alone would be nightmare
> enough.
>
> Nonetheless, realism requires one to assume that this risk of a
> struggle over regional hegemony, a risk that assumes a nuclear
> dimension with Iran, will bring about a situation that triggers a
> military confrontation that none of the powers involved wants, but into
> which they will nonetheless find themselves sliding - by virtue of the
> chaotic automatism of the power relations and the high power political
> stakes. What is more, there is already a danger today that Tehran will
> overestimate its own strength and underestimates American power,
> thereby reaching the wrong conclusions -- conclusions with a
> dangerously escalating effect.
>
> --------------------------
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228382 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 04:43 |
|
Komin wrote:
> Kavik Kang ,
> you are a waste of time .
>
> the US military is bogged down in Iraq ,
> like it was in Vietnam .
Kavik Kang is America's biggest propaganda machine. He claimed the
Iraq War was won after 3 weeks. The rest are post war mop-up
operation. No sense talking to him.
>
>
> Kavik Kang wrote:
> > "Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1153565853.908959.14430 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > the Turkish army is preparing to enter northern Iraq , to fight
> > > the PKK>
> >
> > No they aren't, not unless they want a taste of what the US Air Force is
> > capable of...
> >
> >
> > > Iran will keep the US military busy for a long time .
> >
> > If you consider three weeks a long time, I guess so...
> >
> >
> > > Congressman Murtha is saying the truth about China ,
> > > which wants the US military to be bogged down in the United
> > > states of Iraq .
> >
> > Well, since we have "complete and total freedom of movement and total
> > military control over the entire nation", which is the exact opposite of
> > being "bogged down", thing will have to change a whole lot for their
> > "glorious vision" to come true, won't they?
> >
> >
> > > Iraq has 3 states , the Kurdish state ,the Sunni state and the Shi-ite
> > > state .
> >
> > That's really nifty... what does it have to do with the discussion, again?
> >
> > By the way, you didn't actually respond to anything I had said... you must
> > not have had a response, so you top posted to avoid having to give one...
> >
> >
> > > Kavik Kang wrote:
> > >> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> > >> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> > >> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> > >> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> > >> >
> > >> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> > >> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> > >> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> > >> > "fightin' terr'ism."
> > >>
> > >> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> > >> > Afganistan and Iraq,
> > >>
> > >> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> > >> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> > >> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> > >> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
> > >> first
> > >> thing about what you are talking about.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
> > >> > U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
> > >> > threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
> > >> > laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
> > >> > dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
> > >> > semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
> > >>
> > >> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
> > >> war
> > >> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
> > >> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not
> > >> involved
> > >> in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed by people who
> > >> think
> > >> the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that
> > >> war
> > >> would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
> > >> troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they
> > >> would
> > >> not be needed to defeat China. Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria
> > >> would
> > >> be a simple matter by comparison. They are minor nations of
> > >> insigfificant
> > >> military power incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United
> > >> States.
> > >>
> > >> You really are a complete lunatic, aren't you?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > No, Dumbya is too busy at home saving STEM CELLS, knowing that he has
> > >> > caused the deaths of more than 110,000 REAL HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq and
> > >> > Afghanistan.
> > >>
> > >> George Bush hasn't killed anybody, Ossama Bin Laden is responsible for
> > >> all
> > >> of the deaths that happen in the war that he started.
> > >
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228607 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 18:28 |
|
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencramer7 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9t96d$2mcn$1 [at] otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> "Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2Howg.3095$157.2044 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153565853.908959.14430 [at] i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> the Turkish army is preparing to enter northern Iraq , to fight
>>> the PKK>
>>
>> No they aren't, not unless they want a taste of what the US Air Force is
>> capable of...
>>
>>
>>> Iran will keep the US military busy for a long time .
>>
>> If you consider three weeks a long time, I guess so...
>>
>>
>>> Congressman Murtha is saying the truth about China ,
>>> which wants the US military to be bogged down in the United
>>> states of Iraq .
>>
>> Well, since we have "complete and total freedom of movement and total
>> military control over the entire nation", which is the exact opposite of
>> being "bogged down", thing will have to change a whole lot for their
>> "glorious vision" to come true, won't they?
>
> When ya gonna win a war the, noodles?
We won it in three weeks. It's been over for a very long time now. There
is a huge difference between a war and a post war conflict. The war ended
the moment the military disolved and the government fell. It only lasted
about 3 weeks. Welcome back to reality... Eggroll (or insert any other
random food hear like scatterbrained Ben does).
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228608 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 18:28 |
|
"Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencramer7 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9taa1$2mnm$1 [at] otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> "Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:NNowg.8237$vO.3436 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencramer7 [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e9t3g2$2kkm$1 [at] otis.netspace.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Kavik Kang" <kavik_kang [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Fqnwg.3046$157.2264 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>>>>> bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>>>>> States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>>>>> of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>>>>>
>>>>> And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>>>>> not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>>>>> not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>>>>> "fightin' terr'ism."
>>>>
>>>> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED
>>>>> in
>>>>> Afganistan and Iraq,
>>>>
>>>> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which
>>>> is the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who
>>>> are "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die
>>>> almost instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know
>>>> they first thing about what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>>>>> U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>>>>> threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their
>>>>> days
>>>>> laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>>>>> dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>>>>> semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>>>>
>>>> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
>>>> war with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat
>>>> all of them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is
>>>> not involved in any conflict, moron. I will never cease to be amazed
>>>> by people who think the entire US military is in Iraq. If China
>>>> attacked us tonight, that war would be over in months and China would
>>>> lose it very, very bad. All US troops currently involved in conflicts
>>>> could stay where they are, they would not be needed to defeat China.
>>>> Obviously, dealing with Iran and Syria would be a simple matter by
>>>> comparison. They are minor nations of insigfificant military power
>>>> incapable of surviving three weeks of war with the United States
>>>
>>> Where the fuck do you get his rubbish, noodles? You can't just "make it
>>> up". It's got to be a project of a huge group of deluded fuckwits. No
>>> single person who is sane, is capable of making these outlandishly
>>> ridiculous predictions.
>>
>> It's not a "predcition", only about 10% of the US military is in Iraq.
>> That is not a prediction, it is a statement of reality. What are you
>> babbling about?
>
> How about answering the first part of the question, i.e. "Where the fuck
> do you get this rubbish"?
Over 25 years of study and experience with the subject. And it isn't
"rubbish", it is the actual truth and reality of the situation.
>> As for China, retaining enough unused military force to defeat China in a
>> matter of months is the cornerstone of current US defense planning and
>> has been since before 911 even happened. We always retain enough unused
>> force to defeat China in a matter of months at all times. That is, in
>> fact, what would trigger a draft. If we needed use more force in other
>> areas than was possible without retaining the ability to defeat China in
>> a matter of months, that is what would trigger a draft. If you actually
>> knew anything at all about these subjects you endlessly babble about, you
>> would know this already. It's like "101" level stuff.
>>
>> Oh, by the way, we can easily defeat the entire middle east
>> simultaniously while retaining enough unused force to defeat China in a
>> matter of months. A collection of minor nations of insigificant military
>> power does not present a challenge to the US military. It really and
>> truly is closer to an excersize than an actual war.
>>
>> Your fantasy land sure is an odd place, in your fantasy land we sure were
>> lucky the Russians never attacked, weren't we? In your fantasy land they
>> would have defeated us in a matter of hours. Welcome back to reality,
>> President of Fantasy Land...
>
> I have no fantasy land, laddie. Very much a realist, me.
Hahahahahahaha... that's totally hilarious, you deluded nutcase.
You most certainly do live in your own little fantasy land. In your fantasy
land Iraq is more than a match for the US and the entire US military is
"bogged down" and "trapped" there. Meanwhile, back here in reality, only
about 10% of the US military is even in Iraq, and they have "complete and
total freedom of movement and total military control of the entire nation of
Iraq" which is, of course, the exact opposite of being "trapped" or "bogged
down". The exact opposite. You most certainly do live in your own little
fantasy world, and you proved that in this very post we are replying too.
> Based on the yanks previous pathetic attempts at trying to win wars, I'm
> still buggered if I can understand where your jingoism comes from. You've
> no previous successes to base it on.
In your fantasy land I am sure that is true. Meanwhile, back here in
reality, we've won every war we've ever fought except one. The one we
didn't win, we didn't lose either. We simply left voluntarily. We were not
militarily defeated, in fact we won every single battle of the war. Every
single one. Welcome back to reality, Mr. President of Fantasy Land.
By the way... you begun to display you total obsession with me again. You
are, once again, replying to every single post I make no matter who the post
is too. Every single one of them. I do love it when you display your
obsession like this...
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228609 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 18:28 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153575037.019187.261400 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kavik Kang wrote:
>> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>> >
>> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>> > "fightin' terr'ism."
>>
>> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>>
>>
>> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>> > Afganistan and Iraq,
>>
>> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
>> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
>> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
>> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
>> first
>> thing about what you are talking about.
>
> Pinned down politically, not physically.
> Of course, America can withdraw the troops at any time. But then the
> invasion will gain America nothing and more likely hurt America
> politically.
That's not what either of them were saying. But we are also not "pinned
down" politically. In fact, you would have to define that term, since you
are making it up at this very moment. I don't know the meaning of terms
that you make up off the top of your head, you'll have to tell me what you
mean by that before I can respond too it.
And we can do anything we want, not just leave. We have complete and total
freedom of movement and total military control over the country. We can go
anywhere, and do anything we want. The enemy, on the other hand, is "pinned
down", "trapped", and "bogged down". We can also invade Iran from Iraq. We
can do anything we want, because we have complete and total freedom of
movement and total military control over the country. And that is only
about 10% of the US military.
>> >due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
>> > U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
>> > threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
>> > laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
>> > dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
>> > semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
>>
>> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
>> war
>> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
>> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not
>> involved
>> in any conflict, moron.
>
> In discussions concerning naval platforms, the term "duty cycle" often
> comes up. Ships need repair and upgrade all the time. Hence if the
> navy need 3 submarine on station all the time, altogether 6 submarines
> may be needed. In this case, the submarines have a duty cylce of 50%.
It's more like 6 submarines are needed to keep 4 in operation at all times,
but you are actually saying something that is generally accurate. What a
refreshing change of pace for this newsgroup...
Of course, in time of war... we could easily use all 6 at once...
> The same concept could be applid to soldiers. Hence, the military need
> more than 130,000 soldiers in order to keep 130,000 soldiers in Iraq.
> In addition, 130,000 soldiers in Iraq usually means more than 130,000
> in Iraq. It could be as large as 200,000. Troops are always rotating
> in and out. It takes months to send a large army in. It also take
> months to ship them home. No logistic department has found a way to
> exactly match the in units with the out units. And of course,
> military bass always prefer more troops if possible. So the actual
> troop level in Iraq is usually higher.
Well, Army divisions are actually designed to do this today. It's built
into their structure. So if a division has 3 brigades, for the sake of
simplicity, 1 might be in Iraq, while one is "stood down" for time at home
with their families, and the third is on standby for use outside of Iraq if
needed. That "stood down" brigade can be brought back in a heartbeat if it
is needed in an emergency... such as if China started a war with us. None
of this changes anything I said, in fact all you are doing is saying pretty
much the same exact thing at a different level of detail. Only about 10% of
the US military is in Iraq. Most of the other 90% is sitting around bored
doing nothing right now.
The original point I was refuting was "America can do nothing to Iran or
Syria, their entire army is TRAPPED in Iraq". Which you have now also
proven incorrect. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
> You can also read the following article to appreciate the strain the
> Iraq has been placing on the military.
>
> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/12/troops_numbers/
That's ok, I'll stick with people who actually know what they are talking
about... like active generals, the pentagon, etc.
>> I will never cease to be amazed by people who think
>> the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that war
>> would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
>> troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they
>> would
>> not be needed to defeat China.
>
> As is, America will be overstretched to fight Iran.
....And then you fall right back into fantasy land. It took 10% of the US
military to militarily defeat Iraq in 3 weeks. Iraq was stronger than Iran
is. 90% of the US military is sitting around twiddling their thumbs right
now. If China started a war with us tomorrow, China would lose that war in
a matter of months. Iran is a minor nation of insignificant military power
that would be militarily defeated in about 3 weeks by 10% of the US
military. That would leave 80% of the US military sitting around doing
nothing, and leave us with the capability to STILL, on top of both Iran and
Iraq and Afghanistan, defeat China in a matter of months. In fact, we could
take on the entire middle east, a collection of minor nations of
insignificant military power, and still defeat China in a matter of
months... not just meaningless little Iran.
The US military is too you people much like the universe is too many people.
Much as many people are simply totally incapable of even beginning to
comprehend the actual size of the universe, you are one of those people who
is simply totally incpable of comprehending the power of the US military.
It is like 1,000 times more poweful than your imaginings. There is no
comparing it to the military of your country, whichever country that is, the
US military would defeat your country's military in a matter of weeks
(months if you live in China or Russia). You are simply incapable of
comprehending the true power of the US military. Tell me, if Iraq and Iran
is all the US military can handle... why didn't the Russians just attack us
and walk all over us during the cold war? Obviously, if Iran and Iraq would
be too much for the US military to handle, then the Soviets clearly could
have crushed us literally in a matter of hours. Why didn't they? Answer:
The US military is about 1,000 times more powerful than you believe it too
be. The Russians did not have your problem, they understood what they were
up against, which is why they never flinched.
You quite simply don't know what you are talking about. Which, I would
think, would be obvious to just about everyone.
|
|
|
| Re: America trapped in Iraq Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan [message #228610 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 18:29 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153577616.868026.275540 [at] i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kavik Kang wrote:
>> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
>> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
>> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>> >
>> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>> > "fightin' terr'ism."
>>
>> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>>
>>
>> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
>> > Afganistan and Iraq,
>>
>> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
>> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
>> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
>> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
>> first
>> thing about what you are talking about.
>
> The following is excerpted from an article by German's former Foreign
> minister. It explains the dilemma of America as well as the world.
>
> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,druck-418515,00.html
>
> ----------------------
>>From this there resulted a second question: If the US entered Iraq with
> superior military might but with a lack of political support, then how
> were they going to leave again within a manageable timeframe without
> leaving behind a highly explosive vacuum? This question is still
> unanswered today. Because these questions were foreseeable, warnings
> against going to war were issued from various sides. The occupation of
> Iraq and the toppling of the dictator Saddam Hussein had to lead either
> to a great realignment of the entire Middle East or create a vacuum
> that would threaten to endanger the cohesion of Iraq, trigger a civil
> war and draw the most important regional powers into this war.
>
> There is a third question that should not be forgotten. The toppling of
> Saddam Hussein by the US would shift the power balance among the
> regional powers in a decisive way, unless that power balance was
> adjusted and hence neutralized by the lasting presence of the US as the
> new Middle Eastern hegemonic power. The US approach of attempting to
> make the war in Iraq the trigger for regional realignment on the basis
> of democratization and free elections could not but turn the old power
> relations between Arabs and Kurds, between the Sunni minority -- which
> is also the traditional power elite -- and the Shiite majority on their
> heads. For democracy means the rule of the majority determined by free
> elections, and the Shiites make up the majority in Iraq.
>
> That also made it clear from the start that Tehran's influence on the
> fate of Iraq would rise disproportionately, and that Iran threatened to
> become the genuine regional winner of the war in Iraq if the US lost
> control over events on the ground or if the feared power vacuum were to
> be created by a US retreat. The current development in Iraq is leading
> very quickly into this disastrous direction. The urgent question of how
> to prevent a situation in which the US, with its policy in Iraq,
> unintentionally makes itself an agent of the implementation of Iranian
> interests, thereby decisively strengthening Iran, was in fact never
> answered by Washington.
>
> The power vacuum the US threatens to leave behind in the region in the
> case of a withdrawal from Iraq will draw all regional powers involved
> into a struggle over hegemony in Iraq and in the region. The first
> regional power that needs to be mentioned in this regard is Iran; the
> second is Israel, and the third Turkey. Without a doubt Saudi Arabia,
> Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states will not sit idly by. They
> currently find themselves in a weak position, both structurally and in
> terms of their specific current situations. Moreover, they are
> threatening to become the next hot spots of the conflict over hegemony
> in the Near East triggered by the war in Iraq. In order to understand
> the tremendous strategic danger of the Iranian nuclear program, which
> is doubtless aimed at making Iran a nuclear power in the military
> sense, one has to consider this possible hegemonic confrontation
> between Israel and Iran.
>
> Israel will interpret the Iranian bomb both as a threat to its
> existence and as a hegemonic challenge, and this constellation contains
> within it the danger of a highly explosive crisis. But Turkey, Egypt,
> Saudi Arabia and all the other states in the region will not sit idly
> by either as Iran pursues Near Eastern hegemony by means of its nuclear
> program, so that there is the risk that there will at least be a
> nuclear arms race in the Near East. This alone would be nightmare
> enough.
>
> Nonetheless, realism requires one to assume that this risk of a
> struggle over regional hegemony, a risk that assumes a nuclear
> dimension with Iran, will bring about a situation that triggers a
> military confrontation that none of the powers involved wants, but into
> which they will nonetheless find themselves sliding - by virtue of the
> chaotic automatism of the power relations and the high power political
> stakes. What is more, there is already a danger today that Tehran will
> overestimate its own strength and underestimates American power,
> thereby reaching the wrong conclusions -- conclusions with a
> dangerously escalating effect.
I actually agree with most of what he has said here. Although it doesn't
have anything to do with the original poster's insistance that the entire US
military is "trapped" in Iraq, which is clearly rediculous.
I'm actually confused as to what relvance you think this had to that silly
statement, which is what this discussion is about.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228656 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 23:35 |
|
"Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153616330.017237.7200 [at] h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Kavik Kang ,
> you are a waste of time .
>
> the US military is bogged down in Iraq ,
> like it was in Vietnam .
Meanwhile, back in reality, what we have in Iraq is "complete and total
freedom of movement" and "total military control of the entire nation". In
other words, the exact opposite of "bogged down". The terrorists, on the
other hand, are certainly "bogged down" in Iraq. If you actually knew what
you were talking about, you would know that already.
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228657 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 23:35 |
|
<rst0wxyz [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153622612.738910.317850 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Komin wrote:
>> Kavik Kang ,
>> you are a waste of time .
>>
>> the US military is bogged down in Iraq ,
>> like it was in Vietnam .
>
> Kavik Kang is America's biggest propaganda machine. He claimed the
> Iraq War was won after 3 weeks. The rest are post war mop-up
> operation. No sense talking to him.
Close, I said something close to that. I said that the war ended in 3 weeks
and that everything since then is the very same "post war conflict" that
exists after almost every war. I never used the words "mop-up", which is a
negatively loaded term that a propagandist would use. If you actually knew
what you were talking about, you would know that the war ended in 3 weeks.
We won, by the way. When the military is destroyed and the government
collapses the war is over. Everything after that is a "post war conflict"
that exists after almost all wars.
|
|
|
| Re: America trapped in Iraq Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan [message #228658 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 23:35 |
|
"Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153616516.753505.314580 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Iraq is costing the US 11 million dollars every hour ,
Yes... I bet that is a lot of money to your country, huh?
> ltlee1 wrote:
>> Kavik Kang wrote:
>> > <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
>> > > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the
>> > > United
>> > > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the
>> > > level
>> > > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
>> > >
>> > > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
>> > > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
>> > > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
>> > > "fightin' terr'ism."
>> >
>> > It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
>> >
>> >
>> > > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED
>> > > in
>> > > Afganistan and Iraq,
>> >
>> > No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which
>> > is
>> > the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
>> > "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
>> > instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
>> > first
>> > thing about what you are talking about.
>>
>> The following is excerpted from an article by German's former Foreign
>> minister. It explains the dilemma of America as well as the world.
>>
>> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,druck-418515,00.html
>>
>> ----------------------
>> >From this there resulted a second question: If the US entered Iraq with
>> superior military might but with a lack of political support, then how
>> were they going to leave again within a manageable timeframe without
>> leaving behind a highly explosive vacuum? This question is still
>> unanswered today. Because these questions were foreseeable, warnings
>> against going to war were issued from various sides. The occupation of
>> Iraq and the toppling of the dictator Saddam Hussein had to lead either
>> to a great realignment of the entire Middle East or create a vacuum
>> that would threaten to endanger the cohesion of Iraq, trigger a civil
>> war and draw the most important regional powers into this war.
>>
>> There is a third question that should not be forgotten. The toppling of
>> Saddam Hussein by the US would shift the power balance among the
>> regional powers in a decisive way, unless that power balance was
>> adjusted and hence neutralized by the lasting presence of the US as the
>> new Middle Eastern hegemonic power. The US approach of attempting to
>> make the war in Iraq the trigger for regional realignment on the basis
>> of democratization and free elections could not but turn the old power
>> relations between Arabs and Kurds, between the Sunni minority -- which
>> is also the traditional power elite -- and the Shiite majority on their
>> heads. For democracy means the rule of the majority determined by free
>> elections, and the Shiites make up the majority in Iraq.
>>
>> That also made it clear from the start that Tehran's influence on the
>> fate of Iraq would rise disproportionately, and that Iran threatened to
>> become the genuine regional winner of the war in Iraq if the US lost
>> control over events on the ground or if the feared power vacuum were to
>> be created by a US retreat. The current development in Iraq is leading
>> very quickly into this disastrous direction. The urgent question of how
>> to prevent a situation in which the US, with its policy in Iraq,
>> unintentionally makes itself an agent of the implementation of Iranian
>> interests, thereby decisively strengthening Iran, was in fact never
>> answered by Washington.
>>
>> The power vacuum the US threatens to leave behind in the region in the
>> case of a withdrawal from Iraq will draw all regional powers involved
>> into a struggle over hegemony in Iraq and in the region. The first
>> regional power that needs to be mentioned in this regard is Iran; the
>> second is Israel, and the third Turkey. Without a doubt Saudi Arabia,
>> Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states will not sit idly by. They
>> currently find themselves in a weak position, both structurally and in
>> terms of their specific current situations. Moreover, they are
>> threatening to become the next hot spots of the conflict over hegemony
>> in the Near East triggered by the war in Iraq. In order to understand
>> the tremendous strategic danger of the Iranian nuclear program, which
>> is doubtless aimed at making Iran a nuclear power in the military
>> sense, one has to consider this possible hegemonic confrontation
>> between Israel and Iran.
>>
>> Israel will interpret the Iranian bomb both as a threat to its
>> existence and as a hegemonic challenge, and this constellation contains
>> within it the danger of a highly explosive crisis. But Turkey, Egypt,
>> Saudi Arabia and all the other states in the region will not sit idly
>> by either as Iran pursues Near Eastern hegemony by means of its nuclear
>> program, so that there is the risk that there will at least be a
>> nuclear arms race in the Near East. This alone would be nightmare
>> enough.
>>
>> Nonetheless, realism requires one to assume that this risk of a
>> struggle over regional hegemony, a risk that assumes a nuclear
>> dimension with Iran, will bring about a situation that triggers a
>> military confrontation that none of the powers involved wants, but into
>> which they will nonetheless find themselves sliding - by virtue of the
>> chaotic automatism of the power relations and the high power political
>> stakes. What is more, there is already a danger today that Tehran will
>> overestimate its own strength and underestimates American power,
>> thereby reaching the wrong conclusions -- conclusions with a
>> dangerously escalating effect.
>>
>> --------------------------
>
|
|
|
| Re: America trapped in Iraq Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan [message #228686 ] |
Mo, 24 Juli 2006 02:41 |
|
Mr. Erics was interviewed during the CNBC
programe " Meet the Presss " this Sunday ,
about his new Books : " Fiasco " in Iraq .
Kavik Kang wrote:
> "Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153616516.753505.314580 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Iraq is costing the US 11 million dollars every hour ,
>
> Yes... I bet that is a lot of money to your country, huh?
>
>
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> >> Kavik Kang wrote:
> >> > <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> >> > > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the
> >> > > United
> >> > > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the
> >> > > level
> >> > > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> >> > >
> >> > > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> >> > > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> >> > > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> >> > > "fightin' terr'ism."
> >> >
> >> > It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED
> >> > > in
> >> > > Afganistan and Iraq,
> >> >
> >> > No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which
> >> > is
> >> > the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> >> > "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> >> > instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
> >> > first
> >> > thing about what you are talking about.
> >>
> >> The following is excerpted from an article by German's former Foreign
> >> minister. It explains the dilemma of America as well as the world.
> >>
> >> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518 ,druck-418515,00.html
> >>
> >> ----------------------
> >> >From this there resulted a second question: If the US entered Iraq with
> >> superior military might but with a lack of political support, then how
> >> were they going to leave again within a manageable timeframe without
> >> leaving behind a highly explosive vacuum? This question is still
> >> unanswered today. Because these questions were foreseeable, warnings
> >> against going to war were issued from various sides. The occupation of
> >> Iraq and the toppling of the dictator Saddam Hussein had to lead either
> >> to a great realignment of the entire Middle East or create a vacuum
> >> that would threaten to endanger the cohesion of Iraq, trigger a civil
> >> war and draw the most important regional powers into this war.
> >>
> >> There is a third question that should not be forgotten. The toppling of
> >> Saddam Hussein by the US would shift the power balance among the
> >> regional powers in a decisive way, unless that power balance was
> >> adjusted and hence neutralized by the lasting presence of the US as the
> >> new Middle Eastern hegemonic power. The US approach of attempting to
> >> make the war in Iraq the trigger for regional realignment on the basis
> >> of democratization and free elections could not but turn the old power
> >> relations between Arabs and Kurds, between the Sunni minority -- which
> >> is also the traditional power elite -- and the Shiite majority on their
> >> heads. For democracy means the rule of the majority determined by free
> >> elections, and the Shiites make up the majority in Iraq.
> >>
> >> That also made it clear from the start that Tehran's influence on the
> >> fate of Iraq would rise disproportionately, and that Iran threatened to
> >> become the genuine regional winner of the war in Iraq if the US lost
> >> control over events on the ground or if the feared power vacuum were to
> >> be created by a US retreat. The current development in Iraq is leading
> >> very quickly into this disastrous direction. The urgent question of how
> >> to prevent a situation in which the US, with its policy in Iraq,
> >> unintentionally makes itself an agent of the implementation of Iranian
> >> interests, thereby decisively strengthening Iran, was in fact never
> >> answered by Washington.
> >>
> >> The power vacuum the US threatens to leave behind in the region in the
> >> case of a withdrawal from Iraq will draw all regional powers involved
> >> into a struggle over hegemony in Iraq and in the region. The first
> >> regional power that needs to be mentioned in this regard is Iran; the
> >> second is Israel, and the third Turkey. Without a doubt Saudi Arabia,
> >> Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states will not sit idly by. They
> >> currently find themselves in a weak position, both structurally and in
> >> terms of their specific current situations. Moreover, they are
> >> threatening to become the next hot spots of the conflict over hegemony
> >> in the Near East triggered by the war in Iraq. In order to understand
> >> the tremendous strategic danger of the Iranian nuclear program, which
> >> is doubtless aimed at making Iran a nuclear power in the military
> >> sense, one has to consider this possible hegemonic confrontation
> >> between Israel and Iran.
> >>
> >> Israel will interpret the Iranian bomb both as a threat to its
> >> existence and as a hegemonic challenge, and this constellation contains
> >> within it the danger of a highly explosive crisis. But Turkey, Egypt,
> >> Saudi Arabia and all the other states in the region will not sit idly
> >> by either as Iran pursues Near Eastern hegemony by means of its nuclear
> >> program, so that there is the risk that there will at least be a
> >> nuclear arms race in the Near East. This alone would be nightmare
> >> enough.
> >>
> >> Nonetheless, realism requires one to assume that this risk of a
> >> struggle over regional hegemony, a risk that assumes a nuclear
> >> dimension with Iran, will bring about a situation that triggers a
> >> military confrontation that none of the powers involved wants, but into
> >> which they will nonetheless find themselves sliding - by virtue of the
> >> chaotic automatism of the power relations and the high power political
> >> stakes. What is more, there is already a danger today that Tehran will
> >> overestimate its own strength and underestimates American power,
> >> thereby reaching the wrong conclusions -- conclusions with a
> >> dangerously escalating effect.
> >>
> >> --------------------------
> >
|
|
|
| Re: RUBBISH! U.S. Can't Even "Balkanise" Iraq & Aghanistan! [message #228695 ] |
Mo, 24 Juli 2006 02:52 |
|
Kavik Kang wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153575037.019187.261400 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Kavik Kang wrote:
> >> <perryneheum [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1153489555.386976.154640 [at] b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > FIRST, Syria and Iran need to be heavily BOMBED by Israeli jets and
> >> > bombers. Unless and until those true enemies of Israel and the United
> >> > States PAY for sponsoring terrorism, Israel will NEVER enjoy the level
> >> > of "peace," security, and safety it has "enjoyed" pre-2006 Lebanon.
> >> >
> >> > And until some country or coalition teaches Syria's and Iran's rulers
> >> > not to cause international trouble, our White House war criminal will
> >> > not be able to credibly repeat (lie) again and again that he's
> >> > "fightin' terr'ism."
> >>
> >> It's not a lie, that's what we are doing alright...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Unfortunately, with 130,000-plus U.S. troops pinned down and TRAPPED in
> >> > Afganistan and Iraq,
> >>
> >> No we aren't. We have "complete and totaly freedom of movement" which is
> >> the exact opposite of being "trapped". The only people in Iraq who are
> >> "trapped" are the terrorist who must hide in fear and will die almost
> >> instantly if they show themselves. You quite simply don't know they
> >> first
> >> thing about what you are talking about.
> >
> > Pinned down politically, not physically.
> > Of course, America can withdraw the troops at any time. But then the
> > invasion will gain America nothing and more likely hurt America
> > politically.
>
> That's not what either of them were saying. But we are also not "pinned
> down" politically. In fact, you would have to define that term, since you
> are making it up at this very moment. I don't know the meaning of terms
> that you make up off the top of your head, you'll have to tell me what you
> mean by that before I can respond too it.
>
> And we can do anything we want, not just leave. We have complete and total
> freedom of movement and total military control over the country. We can go
> anywhere, and do anything we want. The enemy, on the other hand, is "pinned
> down", "trapped", and "bogged down". We can also invade Iran from Iraq. We
> can do anything we want, because we have complete and total freedom of
> movement and total military control over the country. And that is only
> about 10% of the US military.
>
>
> >> >due to the Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld criminal cabal, the
> >> > U.S. can't itself do anything about Syria and Iran except posture and
> >> > threaten. And Hassan and Ahmadinejad KNOW this! They spend their days
> >> > laughing at America's fool president, who, coward that he is, won't
> >> > dare take action against them, or Kim Jong Il, or any other
> >> > semi-powerful U.S. antagonist.
> >>
> >> 130,000 is about 10% of the US military, idiot. We can easily fight a
> >> war
> >> with the entire middle east and China at the same time and defeat all of
> >> them simultaniously, clueless idiot. 85% of the US military is not
> >> involved
> >> in any conflict, moron.
> >
> > In discussions concerning naval platforms, the term "duty cycle" often
> > comes up. Ships need repair and upgrade all the time. Hence if the
> > navy need 3 submarine on station all the time, altogether 6 submarines
> > may be needed. In this case, the submarines have a duty cylce of 50%.
>
> It's more like 6 submarines are needed to keep 4 in operation at all times,
> but you are actually saying something that is generally accurate. What a
> refreshing change of pace for this newsgroup...
>
> Of course, in time of war... we could easily use all 6 at once...
>
>
> > The same concept could be applid to soldiers. Hence, the military need
> > more than 130,000 soldiers in order to keep 130,000 soldiers in Iraq.
> > In addition, 130,000 soldiers in Iraq usually means more than 130,000
> > in Iraq. It could be as large as 200,000. Troops are always rotating
> > in and out. It takes months to send a large army in. It also take
> > months to ship them home. No logistic department has found a way to
> > exactly match the in units with the out units. And of course,
> > military bass always prefer more troops if possible. So the actual
> > troop level in Iraq is usually higher.
>
> Well, Army divisions are actually designed to do this today. It's built
> into their structure. So if a division has 3 brigades, for the sake of
> simplicity, 1 might be in Iraq, while one is "stood down" for time at home
> with their families, and the third is on standby for use outside of Iraq if
> needed. That "stood down" brigade can be brought back in a heartbeat if it
> is needed in an emergency... such as if China started a war with us. None
> of this changes anything I said, in fact all you are doing is saying pretty
> much the same exact thing at a different level of detail. Only about 10% of
> the US military is in Iraq. Most of the other 90% is sitting around bored
> doing nothing right now.
>
> The original point I was refuting was "America can do nothing to Iran or
> Syria, their entire army is TRAPPED in Iraq". Which you have now also
> proven incorrect. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
They are right. The following is from congressman Murtha whose view on
military issues are well respected
"The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their
families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some
of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even
as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being
cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care.
Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made
to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of
their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that
ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be
prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in
the U.S. "
The military established is indeed trapped in Iraq. Not that every
available soldier is deployed in Iraq. But the miliary is stretched
thin because of Iraq. And the war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at
the bases in the U.S. Currently, no high ranking Pentagon officials or
generals had claimed that the U.S. can still fight China.
>
>
> > You can also read the following article to appreciate the strain the
> > Iraq has been placing on the military.
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/12/troops_numbers/
>
> That's ok, I'll stick with people who actually know what they are talking
> about... like active generals, the pentagon, etc.
>
>
> >> I will never cease to be amazed by people who think
> >> the entire US military is in Iraq. If China attacked us tonight, that war
> >> would be over in months and China would lose it very, very bad. All US
> >> troops currently involved in conflicts could stay where they are, they
> >> would
> >> not be needed to defeat China.
> >
> > As is, America will be overstretched to fight Iran.
>
> ...And then you fall right back into fantasy land. It took 10% of the US
> military to militarily defeat Iraq in 3 weeks. Iraq was stronger than Iran
> is. 90% of the US military is sitting around twiddling their thumbs right
> now. If China started a war with us tomorrow, China would lose that war in
> a matter of months. Iran is a minor nation of insignificant military power
> that would be militarily defeated in about 3 weeks by 10% of the US
> military. That would leave 80% of the US military sitting around doing
> nothing, and leave us with the capability to STILL, on top of both Iran and
> Iraq and Afghanistan, defeat China in a matter of months. In fact, we could
> take on the entire middle east, a collection of minor nations of
> insignificant military power, and still defeat China in a matter of
> months... not just meaningless little Iran.
>
> The US military is too you people much like the universe is too many people.
> Much as many people are simply totally incapable of even beginning to
> comprehend the actual size of the universe, you are one of those people who
> is simply totally incpable of comprehending the power of the US military.
> It is like 1,000 times more poweful than your imaginings. There is no
> comparing it to the military of your country, whichever country that is, the
> US military would defeat your country's military in a matter of weeks
> (months if you live in China or Russia). You are simply incapable of
> comprehending the true power of the US military. Tell me, if Iraq and Iran
> is all the US military can handle... why didn't the Russians just attack us
> and walk all over us during the cold war? Obviously, if Iran and Iraq would
> be too much for the US military to handle, then the Soviets clearly could
> have crushed us literally in a matter of hours. Why didn't they? Answer:
> The US military is about 1,000 times more powerful than you believe it too
> be. The Russians did not have your problem, they understood what they were
> up against, which is why they never flinched.
>
> You quite simply don't know what you are talking about. Which, I would
> think, would be obvious to just about everyone.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Mai 23 02:20:33 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,24398 Sekunden |
