What the fuck type of crack is Wes smoking?
I like him, I really really like him, but his penchant for eating his foot is starting to worry me.
Umm…Yea. Ginger was using my 'puter. Sorry all, both posts under Ginger’s name in this thread were by me.
Don’t get me wrong, Age Quod Agis. Remember I said you have to take his statement on faith alone–there is no proof, and given the proclivities of the folks running the show, there never will be one way or the other if they have anything to say about it.
What pisses me off is when the Defenders of the Faith charge right in with their cries of “bullshit!” when I think I can make a pretty good case that this is the plan whether or not Clark is bullshitting.
The stated reasons for the war on Iraq were fucking absurd, as we now know. It stands to reason that there was an ulterior motive behind that invasion.
I think the motive is pretty goddamned clear. As I pointed out before, the enemies were clearly identified in the PGT, the strategic plan was spelled out in the NSS–a strategy which purportedly looks very much like the plan proposed by Wolfowitz in 1992, and Wolfowitz himself has been one of the most frank and aboveboard mouthpieces of the plan.
As far as Clark giving up the goods? Well, it wouldn’t be the first time someone had to put the family jewels on the line to expose fucked up shit in the White House. If it’s illegal, it at least contains a… shall I say it?.. moral component which might be perceived by some to be worth risking in the long run. This ain’t the last of these you’ll see.
And to think just four years ago it became an impeachable offense to lie about exposing the real family jewels. Those fuckers–and I know you’re out there–are apparently into facials these days.
During Allied Force, I was at Rammstein in Germany, and frankly, while everyone respected General Clark, few people really took him seriously. He had a perpensity toward exaggeration and misrepresenting facts (always so we’d get more matereal to perform our missions, but still, a white lie that gets the troops more ammo is still a white lie.) This is probably one of those misrepresentations. A buddy of mine, a combat controller with the 22nd STS (individually attached to the 10th Mtn Div, XVIII Corps) told me once that we had combat contingeny plans to land airborne troops in over 120 different countries (including Canada :D) Just because we plan for the worst in all situations, doesn’t mean we’re gonna carry 'em out. I don’t know, just a thought.
I’d say. After a hundred years of trying, you’d think at least one side’s worth of the old soldiers would just give up and friggin’ die! 
As we NOW know?
Uhh, okay, if you say so. . .
What are you trying to say here? That we knew before the war started that it wasn’t about “a pre-emptive strike” to save ourselves from WMDs? Or that we still don’t know this?
Still droning on about the legality of the invasion huh? How like a bunch of obsessed lawyers on coke. And always oozing this smug air of we know better, we’re morally superior, Bushies and his lap-dog Blair are evil. How fucking and utterly boring! Yap yap yap. Screw that! Sadam was evil, there’s your ulterior motive. The Iraqis are better off without him, the world is better off without him. That’s all the reason I need. Also all the reason the Iraqis I have talked to needed.
Yesterday I was at a hearing with the Danish Prime minister (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) about something to do with Europe. Anyway a man stood up and excused himself for speaking off topic, but he wanted so much to thank Rasmussen for backing the US in the war. BTW. that man was an Iraqi refugee – who had been in contact with his family before in Iraq, during and after the war. He wanted so much to say that he though it was the right thing to have done, because all he heard was bickering, bickering and bickering.
After Baghdad fell a very unusual and spontaneous demonstration took place in Copenhagen; a cortège of Iraqi refugees in their cars, honking and shouting – in mad happiness. Driving past the American embassy to scream their thanks, it was quite absurd to see on the opposite side of the embassy cambered down for the duration of the war, was the left wing anti-war demonstrations with their international solidarity banners. Who exactly is it you guys feel solidarity with eh?
I have a friend (yeah yeah :rolleyes: ), an Iranian refugee. He tells me that when he was a child one of the only things that kept him going was a dream the Americans would invade Iran and free them from the cursed Islamic mullahs. Unfortunately for him they never did and he ended up spending a good part of his youth isolated in a cell unable to stand up. He says it did something to him, broke him in some way, that he never quite will be himself again. Perhaps that’s the reason he starts to simmer and frothing when he sees those so called anti imperialist and global solidarity spoiled brats.
These are quite enough reasons for me. And quite frankly I think a few of those countries on Wesleys list would be better off for a brisk invasion.
- Rune
according to the logic of your first paragraph, you just justified an invasion of the USA because Bush is evil. (he is, but that’s another story). We will be better off without him come next novermber.
Absolutely! As soon as you prove that Dubbya and company are causing real physical harm to a large portion of the U.S. population ( Jailing, beatings, murder, etc…) I’ll be behind an invasion of the USA 100%.
Until then quit whining.
I just hope it’s one of the Countries which still has the concept of “August as a holiday” which invades us. Oh, and lots of nude beaches. And that funny extra colorful play money they call currency- it makes every shopping trip like a board game!
Another bit of Pubbie anti-Clark slander refuted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58006-2003Sep24.html
Even more bad news for the ultra-right talk shows and bloggers:
Error correction mine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58006-2003Sep24.html
Some sources for the bogus Hillary behind Clark claims:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46203-2003Sep22.html
FYI: I have no position on him yet- still don’t know his positions. Also his VP choice is key. How about John McCain? Heh, heh, heh Pubbies- back off the ledge, I was just kidding. . .
Maybe he just fell asleep during an episode of 24 and got confused.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Retired General H. Hugh Shelton, would not vote for Weasely Clark.
Of course, ‘integrity and character issues’ are hardly unknown among Democrat presidents.
Or within the most indited Presidential team in history-Ronald Reagan’s.
There you are!
I was getting worried. No drive-bys in a while, thought maybe the Hurricane had knocked you offline for a while.
To the meat of your “argument”:
Gee former JCOS, I am betting hard core Pubbie, so his lack of support of Clark is none too stunning. Also given the massive amount of politics in the 2 star and above General level ranks of the Army over power, control and prestige- the fact that Shelton still has a hard-on for Clark is none too stunning.
The fact the Shelton is stuck with losaltosonline.com to grind his axe, while Clark is projected to beat Bush in current polls offers a telling look at who has done better for themselves.
Not that I love Clark, but yeesh come on try and be a little skeptical.
Also “Weasely Clark”, that’s Carrot-top level humor. What far-right site came up with that stinker?
Still, good to see you around. Not the same without you.
Ouch!
Poor Bill, he was at least 10 legal actions short of getting his name on a aircraft carrier. 
Sorry to take so long to respond, Biggirl. And that my post was so ambiguous. The former, of course.
Planning on both sides continued even later than that (but I think I slept through the history lecture about the War of 1912). Canada’s “Defence Scheme Number 1” which included plans for tactical invasions of the United States was written by Colonel J. Sutherland “Buster” Brown in 1921 and not officially withdrawn until 1929. The American “War Plan Red” which included plans for invasions and occupation of Canada was developed over a longer period from the early 1920s to early 30s. Very shortly after its completion, it was declared obsolete, but wasn’t officially withdrawn until 1939. Neither plan was ever likely to be put into effect, being little more than training exercises. Did the U.S. plan an invasion of Canada in the 1920s?
Good information, but you do realize that the “1912” in my post was a typo, I meant “1812”, don’t you?.