[JustinL]

Although I wouldn't say we are in "WW3", I did find this interesting. I dont remember what thread it was, but I remember someone saying "I don't believe anyone wanted to attack america until Bush took office."

> When WWIII Started****1979
>
> This is not very long, but very informative You have to read the
> catalogue
> of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take
> the
> position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit
> back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever
> bother
> us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November
> 1979...
> that alarm has been ringing for years
>
> US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station,
> Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month.
> It is
> an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this
> action is so necessary.
>
> AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
>
> That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more
> than
> 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it
> should
> have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been
> buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and
> roll
> over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
>
> It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a
> religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students
> attacked
> and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright
> attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most
> powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this
> sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the
> next 25
> years.
>
> America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience
> and
> had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President
> Carter, had
> to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert.
> The
> ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's
> inability to deal with terrorism.
>
> America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since
> the
> end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly
> organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was
> doomed from the start.
>
> Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped
> and
> killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect
> her
> citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil
> continued.
>
> In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was
> driven into
> the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63
> people. The
> alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
>
> Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden
> down
> with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US
> Marine
> Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America
> mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
>
> Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with
> explosives is
> driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her
> slumber.
>
> The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the
> gate
> of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
>
> Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in
> a
> restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
>
> Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into
> the
> main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the
> snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are
> continually
> attacked.
>
> Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is
> hijacked
> and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the
> passenger list and executed.
>
> The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners
> when
> they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most
> tragic
> bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988, killing
> 259.
>
> Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still
> trying
> to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
>
> The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
>
> The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993,
> two
> CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in
> Langley,
> Virginia.
>
> The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested
> after
> a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground
> parking
> garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are
> killed and
> over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The
> Snooze alarm is depressed again.
>
> Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in
> Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
>
> A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35
> yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It
> destroys
> the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring
> over
> 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that
> America
> does not respond decisively.
>
> They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two
> US
> embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with
> precision.
> They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes
> back to
> sleep.
>
> The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12
> October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and
> exploded
> killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war,
> but we
> sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
>
> And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans
> think
> this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong
> they are.
> America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to
> hit the
> snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
>
> In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high
> officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know.
> But
> if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can
> see
> exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on
> the
> National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing
> since
> 1979.
>
> I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will
> continue
> until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get
> out of
> Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We
> have to
> be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of
> life
> continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and
> again and roll over and go back to sleep.
>
> After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems
> all we
> have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to
> disseminate to terrorists around the world.
>
> This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year
> this is
> an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our
> children
> in years to come.

[Sweatervest]

so uhm.

politics.

yeah.

[ivwshane]

So what does he want us to do?

He cited a bunch of events but what is he saying? We should declare an all out war?

[Eavanr]

Are you honestly telling me that yuor upset that soldiers are dying? That's their job. If you want to express hegemonic control that's the cost. Stop being such a bunch of pussies. You want to dominate the world but your not willing to pay any blood. You think people are just going to roll over for you?

[NoseMaster]

It's a nice thought, but I don't know what the writer expects us to do. His metaphors are nifty, but they're just a facade; to cover up that he doesn't have any idea how to fight terrorism either. It's kind of impossible to fight an invisible enemy. It's not like there's some place where they all hang out. Ridiculous shit like this "war on terrorism" is probably just making them laugh all the way to the airport. It's fun to play the blame game, though.

[mistawiskas]

Originally Posted by ivwshane

So what does he want us to do?

He cited a bunch of events but what is he saying? We should declare an all out war?

I believe he's saying.. that the middle east has already declared war on the USA and our way of life, they stepped up thier offensive in 1979...what are we going to do about it? Because all our responses until 9-11 have been trivial (if that) and ineffective. I think public opinion and liberal propaganda have answered that question...."hit the snooze alarm
once more". This is no longer 'the land of the brave'. We can't be the "land of the free" without being "the home of the brave". The two are inseparable as news events are showing.

[ivwshane]

It's a matter of easier said than done. What's this guys proposal? To take out whole countries no matter if innocent people die?

[JustinL]

Originally Posted by Eavanr

Are you honestly telling me that yuor upset that soldiers are dying? That's their job. If you want to express hegemonic control that's the cost. Stop being such a bunch of pussies. You want to dominate the world but your not willing to pay any blood. You think people are just going to roll over for you?

I really hope you are not directing that at me. I am currently SERIOUSLY considering joining the marines and heading of to Iraq.

[Eavanr]

JustinL, it is totally up to you to join the marines. I here you can learn some valuable skills, not just in war fighting but in things like communications, mechanics, etc. I hope that you remain safe.

However, I do mean exactly what I say. The expression of hegemonic control in an agressive way as the United States is doing is not without consequences.

This is one of the beliefs of Francis Fukuyama, one of the most articulate and predominant neo-conservatives that ever lived. His essay on the end of history was nothing but support for American Hegemony. However, he has severely injured the Neoconservative movement by saying hegemony cannot be achieved through such forceful means. Almost like Gramscian theory and the belief that hegemony must befounded on consent more than violence.

If you believe you believe you are defending America from terrorism you are sorely mistaken as well. There have never been any links between Iraq and terrorism.

That makes an immense distortion of the facts. It explicitly focuses on attacks against America and not the precipitating cases, such as the CIA involvement in governmental other throws that helped make Iran what it is today.

Wake up. The people who make these attacks against America don't just get up one day and decide "wow, I totally want to kill Americans". Hate is learned.

Wake up from the hyper-self hypnosis that articulates America in a situation where it is us and them, the west and east, civilization and barbarism, surival and destruction, win or lose.

[JustinL]

Who said I wanted hegemonic control? Where did you even get that I was against soldiers being in Iraq? How about you stop trying to impress people with your big words.

The whole point of the article is how america needs to wake up, "Stop being such a bunch of pussies," and kick some ass.

My personal opinion is that America does not have a problem with the middle east in general. I believe that much like here, the minority in the middle east is getting the majority of the attention. How heavily do we rely on china for products? What about Africa, South America, and any other "non-western" countries? Do you see us going to war with them?

I do not believe that America is trying to control the middle east. We are trying to secure oil (while we need it, I can not wait until we have converted to products that can be made here in the US) and give supressed people their freedom.


To be honest with you, I am really have a hard time responding as I am not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are telling america that we need to stop being such pussies, spill some blood and show the world that we will not sit around and be attacked. This is exactly what the article is saying, at least that is what I, and almost everyone else who has read it, gathered from the article.

[Eavanr]

I do not believe that America is trying to control the middle east. We are trying to secure oil (while we need it, I can not wait until we have converted to products that can be made here in the US) and give supressed people their freedom.

Do you people even listen to yourselves?

Your not trying to control them, just take their oil. Because, you know, taking something somebody isn't trying to exert control.

And give suppressed people freedom? You want to talk about suppressed? How about the 500,000 children that died under a decade of economic sanctions in Iraq. I'm sure you stopped suppressing those kids, you know, all the way to their grave.

Freedom? We'll let's just forget about how you 'freed' a few hundred thousand iraqis from their lives. For what, a country that is being torn apart by sectarian violence?

*clap clap*

If by 'free' you mean kill your doing a one hell of a job.

But that's probably to many big words. Here's what I meant to say:

America has been a shit disturber for years. If it wants to interfere with other countries unilaterally, fine, you'll have to pay the price in blood-and that my friend, will be your blood.

[SoulAssassin]

Originally Posted by JustinL

Who said I wanted hegemonic control? Where did you even get that I was against soldiers being in Iraq? How about you stop trying to impress people with your big words.

The whole point of the article is how america needs to wake up, "Stop being such a bunch of pussies," and kick some ass.

My personal opinion is that America does not have a problem with the middle east in general. I believe that much like here, the minority in the middle east is getting the majority of the attention. How heavily do we rely on china for products? What about Africa, South America, and any other "non-western" countries? Do you see us going to war with them?

I do not believe that America is trying to control the middle east. We are trying to secure oil (while we need it, I can not wait until we have converted to products that can be made here in the US) and give supressed people their freedom.


To be honest with you, I am really have a hard time responding as I am not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are telling america that we need to stop being such pussies, spill some blood and show the world that we will not sit around and be attacked. This is exactly what the article is saying, at least that is what I, and almost everyone else who has read it, gathered from the article.

I know what you (and the article) meant...just don't feed the trolls.

[JustinL]

Originally Posted by Eavanr

Your not trying to control them, just take their oil. Because, you know, taking something somebody isn't trying to exert control.

Who said anything about TAKING their oil. I said SECURE meaning make sure we have access to purchase it. Obviously oil is not the only nor the MAIN reason for us going there. First, the UN is usless, they do nothing other then ask people to be good, sort of like asking a serial killer to not kill anyone after he has killed numerous people and giving him parole. Basically, we were tired of not knowing if he had or did not have WMDs.

Originally Posted by Eavanr

And give suppressed people freedom? You want to talk about suppressed? How about the 500,000 children that died under a decade of economic sanctions in Iraq. I'm sure you stopped suppressing those kids, you know, all the way to their grave.

How about this, had saddam being acutally using the "Oil for Food" program would they still have died? Had he not been using it to extort money for his own personal use where could that county be today?

Originally Posted by Eavanr

Freedom? We'll let's just forget about how you 'freed' a few hundred thousand iraqis from their lives. For what, a country that is being torn apart by sectarian violence?

*clap clap*

How many contries do you know that go under a 100% turn around in the way they are run with out any violence at all? How about this, how much of the violence in Iraq is actually from the Iraqis who are trying to move their contry forward? Was America "torn apart" when the blacks were fighting for their freedoms becuase there were radicals (from both parties) rioting and fighting?

Originally Posted by Eavanr

If by 'free' you mean kill your doing a one hell of a job.

How many of his own people did Saddam kill during his reign? He killed nearly 5,000 kurds in one of his FOURTY (40, four zero, four times ten) gas attacks. How many civilian Iraqis have been targeted by Coalition forces? Do you think you could do a better job when the people you are fighting wave white flags pretending to be innocent civilians and then open fire on the troops.

Originally Posted by Eavanr

But that's probably to many big words. Here's what I meant to say:

Personal attacks only come about when the loosing party has come to the realization that they have been out smarted

Originally Posted by Eavanr

America has been a shit disturber for years. If it wants to interfere with other countries unilaterally, fine, you'll have to pay the price in blood

How has america been a shit disturber for years? I have not seen one instance where america STARTED the "shit." We are continually called upon to save other countries. Pretty much all of europe has the UNITED STATES to thank for THEIR freedom which was payed for with AMERICAN blood. Afganistan has made leaps and bounds as far as becoming self sufficient now. Why dont you hear about that on the news? Could it be because of the liberal pussies who only report the stuff that makes the bush administration look bad?

Originally Posted by Eavanr

and that my friend, will be your blood.

Is that suppose to be some sort of a warning to me? Suppose to scare me into not joining the military? See, the thing is, I do not see where you get the idea that we are not willing to pay the price for going to war. Its the media making it sound horrible. Look at the past wars, how many americans have been lost there? In the past year, more soldiers have died on motorcycles after they returned home then actually in iraq. You are more likely to get killed in Washinton, D.C. then you are in Iraq.







Basicaly, I feel that you have watched way to much news and not enough time doing actual research. Where are you from anyways? That may help explain some of your feelings (not intended as an insult, but some cultures have different views). I respect your right to have your own opinions and beliefs, but don't come on here telling me what I am doing wrong

[Eavanr]

Ok, let's do this on a point by point basis.

Who said anything about TAKING their oil. I said SECURE meaning make sure we have access to purchase it. Obviously oil is not the only nor the MAIN reason for us going there. First, the UN is usless, they do nothing other then ask people to be good, sort of like asking a serial killer to not kill anyone after he has killed numerous people and giving him parole. Basically, we were tired of not knowing if he had or did not have WMDs.

What makes you think you have the right to another country's natural resources? Call it secure, liberate, whatever. What gives you the right to be gauranteed to another country's resources?

And I'm sorry, if its not about oil what is it about? Weapons of mass destruction? If I'm not mistaken, that turned out to be a blatant lie. Terrorism? No links ever established. Saddam being a very bad man and killing alot of people and not allowing for freedom?

Well that's confusing because more Iraqi civilian's have died in the last few years than all of Saddam's regime. He's bad for using chemical weapons? The U.S. just recently used white phosphorous in Iraq and has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet that they're not afraid to use. He's suppressing freedom? The Iraqi people have faced daily curfews in the last few weeks, not freedom. Furthermore, if the only justification is that he's a 'bad man' why isn't the United States invading North Korea?

How about this, had saddam being acutally using the "Oil for Food" program would they still have died? Had he not been using it to extort money for his own personal use where could that county be today?

Maybe if you actually read some gulf war literature, (my favourtie is Gerald O'Thutail), you'd see that sanctions strengthened saddam's rule by making people more dependent on him, instead of allowing a legitimate opposition to him develop.

How many contries do you know that go under a 100% turn around in the way they are run with out any violence at all?

Yeah, but lots of countries are able to achieve a democratic transition without a civil war. Venezuela, Russia, much of the old eastern block, etc.

How about this, how much of the violence in Iraq is actually from the Iraqis who are trying to move their contry forward?

By sectarian violence, they mean the different sects within the country.

Was America "torn apart" when the blacks were fighting for their freedoms becuase there were radicals (from both parties) rioting and fighting?

Clean this up grammatically so I can understand your point.

How many of his own people did Saddam kill during his reign? He killed nearly 5,000 kurds in one of his FOURTY (40, four zero, four times ten) gas attacks. How many civilian Iraqis have been targeted by Coalition forces? Do you think you could do a better job when the people you are fighting wave white flags pretending to be innocent civilians and then open fire on the troops.

I could do a better job in realizing that people who do those things don't want me there. Again, America is starting to use chemical weapons, i.e. white phosphorous, and there is no sign of a potential decline in sectarian violence.

Personal attacks only come about when the loosing party has come to the realization that they have been out smarted

Ok, I was only doing what you wanted me to do. Not use big words. Don't attack me for something you asked me to do.

How has america been a shit disturber for years? I have not seen one instance where america STARTED the "shit."

You have absolutely no conception of American interventionist policies and the history of CIA clandestine operations. When American agencies sponsor the overthrow of democratically elected leaders, such as the Hugo Chavez coup of 2002/03 people in the country feel that they have been attacked.

If someone tried to overthrow your government, your democratically elected government, wouldn't you think they'd be the ones starting 'shit'?
(for more information of the American influence of on the Venezuelan coup contact me and I can send you my IR term paper)

We are continually called upon to save other countries.

Really? Maybe I didn't get the memo? When did Iraq call for your help?

Pretty much all of europe has the UNITED STATES to thank for THEIR freedom which was payed for with AMERICAN blood.

And the blood of other countries. And in, fact, Canada had the highest per capita gdp contribution in WW2 out of the allies. So don't try to overshadow others with your glory rhetoric.

Afganistan has made leaps and bounds as far as becoming self sufficient now.

If they are self sufficient why can't America leave? Furthermore, if they are so self sufficient why is there continual western intervention like in the case who was being tried for converting to christianity? It's a democratically elected government, why can't they operate independently? Oh, I forgot, the votes of Afghanis don't matter in comparison to American interest.

Why dont you hear about that on the news? Could it be because of the liberal pussies who only report the stuff that makes the bush administration look bad?

The media report on things that are important to the country. Rising casualties in Iraq are important to the country. If a group of Americans go and slaughter a group of people in a mosque, as was the case a few days ago, that's going to be much bigger news than some Iraqi going to school. Can you guess why that is? The media report on things like bush racking up the biggest debt in the history of the country because its important to Americans.

Is that suppose to be some sort of a warning to me? Suppose to scare me into not joining the military? See, the thing is, I do not see where you get the idea that we are not willing to pay the price for going to war. Its the media making it sound horrible. Look at the past wars, how many americans have been lost there? In the past year, more soldiers have died on motorcycles after they returned home then actually in iraq. You are more likely to get killed in Washinton, D.C. then you are in Iraq.

It's not that your unwilling the price of war, it's that you complain casualties occuring in wars that you started.

Its the media making it sound horrible

WAKE UP! (to use the phrase again) If you think war isn't horrible you've got something wrong with you. This isn't counter strike, this isn't quake, this isn't Halo. These are real people with real families bleeding and dying.

In the past year, more soldiers have died on motorcycles after they returned home then actually in iraq. You are more likely to get killed in Washinton, D.C. then you are in Iraq.

I'm calling bullshit on those numbers, prove it.

I feel that you have watched way to much news and not enough time doing actual research

Name one actual political science journal that you read with regards to the war in Iraq or the American foreign policy in general.

It's kinda of funny that you say I haven't done enough research, I'm the only who has mentioned any academic names, (Fukuyama, O'Thutail, Gramsci). I do this research as a major part as my living as a student. If marks or scholarships are any benchmark of success I do a pretty damn good job.

Where are you from anyways? That may help explain some of your feelings (not intended as an insult, but some cultures have different views). I respect your right to have your own opinions and beliefs, but don't come on here telling me what I am doing wrong

I am from Southern Ontario Canada, right near the Niagara border. I am going to school at Ottawa Univeristy and am an undergrad. I plan to either do a doctorate focusing on Post-Modernism in International Relations or goto law school. Whoever gives me more money at the time.

I am not telling you that what your doing is wrong, what I am telling you is that you have a seriously skewed perception of the facts, and lack the contextual knowledge to understand the situation.

[Sweatervest]

lmao @ this thread.

[basketofkittens]

Originally Posted by Sweatervest

lmao @ this thread.

hehe, qft

[ivanolo]

<sarcasm> Why don't we make Eavanr Tweak3D's Official Political Scientist? He seems to be the only one who truly comprehends politics and economy. He should be the only one allowed to have any say, then. Everybody else has a skewed perception of the facts and lacks the contextual knowledge to understand the situation. Therefore, they shouldn't contribute to the argument. </sarcasm>
Seriously, cut it out with the elitist bullshit. It gets really annoying having to read basically the same thing--but phrased differently, of course--over and over gain. I mean, anybody who doesn't share your opinion gets a stupid sermon about not being qualified to interpret reality. The fact that you've read journals and written essays, despite what you may think, doesn't make you an expert/authority on the subject.

I got a chuckle out of this one:

When American agencies sponsor the overthrow of democratically elected leaders, such as the Hugo Chavez coup of 2002/03 people in the country feel that they have been attacked.

Let me tell you a few things about Hugo Chávez that you may not have read in your journal(s):
- Hugo Chávez was imprisoned for attempting a coup d'etat in 1992.
- Hugo Chávez didn't complete his sentence thanks to Rafael Caldera, the president before him, who pardoned him. It's a known fact that Rafael Caldera was senile and unfit to run a country.
- Hugo Chávez appeals to the poor people who make up 99% of the population. BTW, most of these people are illiterate and/or thieves/killers/rapists.
- Hugo Chávez made promises to take from the rich and give back to the poor, which is a clever way of getting the support from those people.
- Hugo Chávez is as corrupt as the people who were there before him.
- Hugo Chávez replaced all the head executives at PDVSA (Petróleos De Venezuela, Sociedad Anónima) with his own people.
- Hugo Chávez won the 1st. election democratically. The subsequent elections (to recall him) were set up for him to come out on top. Not only that, but he incited his supporters to go out into the streets and prevent the "opposition" from voting (this was on national TV). This caused riots, leaving many injured and dead.
- Hugo Chávez is known for having had newspapers and TV stations closed down because they were reporting (real) news that made him look bad.
- Hugo Chávez is a friend of Fidel Castro, supported Saddam Hussein, and supports Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

One of my uncles supports Chávez and works for PDVSA making big bucks. One of my friends' dad works for the Venezuelan-Caribbean Chamber of Commerce, and they're living large. My other uncle hates Chávez and hasn't been able to find a stable job. The same goes for my other friends' families. Do you see a pattern?

So don't believe all the shit that's spoon-fed to you in college/books. I've actually lived this!

I know exactly what you're doing....

[GirlsRidePonies]

Originally Posted by JustinL

Who said I wanted hegemonic control? Where did you even get that I was against soldiers being in Iraq? How about you stop trying to impress people with your big words.

The whole point of the article is how america needs to wake up, "Stop being such a bunch of pussies," and kick some ass.

My personal opinion is that America does not have a problem with the middle east in general. I believe that much like here, the minority in the middle east is getting the majority of the att