Posts by Forscher

69

Countdown to IRAN

by sacolton in

jw
friends

seems that dubya wants to either invade iran or take out the nuclear threat before his term ends.

what do you guys think of this?

Forscher

Yes, this fact was established on the first page of this thread. What is more important to the equation though is understanding WHY Iran is a problem. Socially and historically, there is a history to this conflict. It does help to find out why it exists. An unsentimental understanding of such matters is what foreign policies should be built on, not the latest issue of Captain America. Interestingly, Iran boasts to having the first democratic consitution ever constructed, recorded on clay prisms in 2,500BC.

You state the obvious, though why you need to escapes me since I've already made my assessment on the why several times on this forum. Your citation of a historical fact is irrelevant to such understanding since Iran is currently a theocratic dictatorship which tries to portray itself as a form of democracy. Objectively speaking, the Iranians, Who have a history of success in war which predates the establishment of the US republic by a few thousand years, saw right through the unfolding strategy of the US administration and headed it off with tried and true strategy employed by both the communists against the US in Vietnam and against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Our military establishment's failure to learn the lessons of both conflicts and head Iran off at the pass is the sole reason for the success of Iran in keeping us bogged down there.

The US has demonstrated how weak and ineffective it's military machine is going up against Iraq ... a country under sanctions and being bombed for a decade. It's geared up for the big conflict with Russia and all the high-tech weapons don't count for as much when it comes down to people on the ground (and it always comes down to people on the ground - don't believe the hype).

Partially correct Simon. The US is more successful than you realize at the moment because the Mainstream is keeping our success out of the public eye. Haven't you noticed that there is almost nothing in the news right now about Iraq? That is because 15 of the 18 objectives of the increase in forces in Iraq are met. The Iraqis have taken over much of the responsibility for dealing with insurgents and accomplished much more than the media wants the public to know. So they are silent on the subject.

Right now the media is pounding the subject of the "resurgence" of the Taliban and cheering them on. That does fit the media paradigm of the ineffective US military so they are pounding away at it. For them a successful US is not news and they just don't want to hear about it. They also neglect to mention that when Bush made his deals to enable him to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and go into Iraq NATO took over the bulk of the responsibility for The Afghan front. For most of the time since a German general held command there and the situation there is due to two factors. One, missteps on European Military leaders on the ground there. Two, ignoring the lesson from both Vietnam and Afghanistan that an enemy allowed safe refuge will regroup and reemerge. Both NATO and the US didn't want to rock an ally's boat, namely Musharraf in neighboring Pakistan, and that repeat of the Soviet's mistake in the same region is the main reason for the situation there.

I fancy Iran's chances to be honest both from a military perspective and politically - I don't think the US has the willpower or stomach to start a conflict that would be very expensive (monetarily and people-wise)

In truth, the Ayatollahs relied on two things. First, the resentment for a conquering force by any people, even when said conquest and occupation provides freedom in reality. Before the US went in a visiting Argentinian professor in the college I last attended pointed out that part of human nature in his assessment of what was likely to happen if the us went into Iraq and he was proven correct by events. Second, they also relied on the historical fact the the US political left-wing just doesn't have the stomach for war and will do anything they can to stop us from going into any war or hinder our conduct of any war entered into. The sole exception being if they are backed into a situation by an outside party like happened in WWII and public opinion sides so strongly for revenge that they are powerless to do anything about it. That, by the way, is why the US stayed out of WWII as long as it did and left you Britts alone to face the darkness. Were it not for a very powerful political left which was actually sympathetic towards Hitler and considered WWII a "European problem" which had nothing to do with us the US would've come to your aid earlier and things would never have been as disparate for your country as they became in 1940-41. So I agree that you are partially correct in your opinion.

Forscher

91

Mexico angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico...

by zeroday in

jw
friends

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/01/20/legislators-from-mexican-state-angry-at-influx-ofmexicans.php.

legislators from mexican state angry at influx of...mexicansposted by kim priestap.

published: january 20, 2008 - 1:39 pmcan you believe the nerve of these people?

Forscher

Ah my bleeding conservative heart really bleeds for them!

Typical of the liberal countries who hate us to demand that we do what they say instead of doing what they do.

Forscher

33

Lawyers at Bethel

by nbernat in

i heard that bethel pays for brothers' undergrad and law school expenses if they serve as lawyers, is that true?

also, just to see the hypocrisy, would they accept someone who went to harvard law even if they weren't a regular pioneer?

Forscher

Back in 1978 an old brother I knew who'd been in the organization for years told me that the WTBS does occasionally pay for an education for brothers of proven loyalty when the need is projected for a loyal dub to fill an organizational need. And that included an undergraduate and graduate education. He was making an argument for me not to apply for a position at Bethel and ignore the ban by seek an education instead. I took part of his counsel at the time and did the rest twelve years later just before the ban was lifted.

Forscher

69

Countdown to IRAN

by sacolton in

jw
friends

seems that dubya wants to either invade iran or take out the nuclear threat before his term ends.

what do you guys think of this?

Forscher

Burn,

Iran is the main financier of the "insurrgency" in Iraq. They are plowing in tons of money, smuggling weapons, and training the insurgents. Without them there would no resources for those fighting both the US and national Iraqi forces. So Iran is the problem.

Forscher

69

Countdown to IRAN

by sacolton in

jw
friends

seems that dubya wants to either invade iran or take out the nuclear threat before his term ends.

what do you guys think of this?

Forscher

well,

Iran is the current problem we have in Iraq. For all their bluster about how they would annihilate if we invaded them dropping a few JSOWs on their troops would pretty much take care of any opposition. The problem is that Bush waited too long to follow through with his strategy. Since he lost the initiative going in right now would just make things worse for our relations with our international "friends."

Forscher

6

Is there a better way to spread democracy?

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4187835.ece>.

michael smith | the sunday times, june 22, 2008. .

british forces in afghanistan have used one of the world's most deadly and .

Forscher

War is a poor way to spread Democracy, period.

I hope those who accuse me of being a "neo-con" will note my statement and apologize as that was my position all along. My reasons for supporting Bush's action in Iraq was, as I mentioned more than once, because I saw it as a sound strategic action in furtherance of stopping those who supported the ongoing war on the US and her allies prosecuted by Muslim extremists. Iraq was a legitimate target due to its material support of terrorists targeting Israel.

As for the use of weapons mentioned in the article given for our consideration, I look to Miyamoto Musashi from his Book of the five Rings. "It is most regrettable for one to die with a weapon sheathed." What Musashi essentially means by that is that when one commits to either a war or combat, one should use all of the weapons at one's disposal which will ensure a victory. That is one of the essential truths of war.

There is no clean, precise way to kill one's enemies. The best one can hope to do is to be precise enough to reduce casualties among the innocent to a minimum. Unfortunately there is no way to bring that reduction to zero. And especially so when one's enemy prefers to use the innocent as a shield, the preferred tactic of our enemy. It is for that reason that one wants to be sure of the need to go to war before committing one's self to it.

For years our leaders preferred to ignore the war conducted against us and treat it as a criminal justice issue. 9/11 brought home to us the foolishness of such a policy. The fact is that we've been at war for a very long time, whether we wanted it or not.

General Patton pointed out that the point of war is "to make the other poor bastard die for his country," or in the current case, cause. So the only logical course is to use those weapons which will do that the most effectively. So, I have no problem with the use of thermobaric weapons against our sworn enemies if they get the job done.

Forscher

18

Kudos to the Irish for rejecting the treaty of Lisbon

by jstalin in

kudos to the irish for standing up for their sovereignty!.

.

Forscher

David,

The following observation is generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Think about it.

Forscher

39

Pathological President defends Iraq War

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

bush defends iraq war in speech by steven lee myerspublished: march 20, 2008washington president bush used the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in iraq on wednesday to make the case for persevering in a conflict that could have many more anniversaries.

democrats accused him of lacking a strategy to win and withdraw.. mr. bush, speaking before members of the armed forces and defense officials at the pentagon, said in his frankest acknowledgment yet that the costs of the war, in lives and money, had been higher and longer lasting than he had anticipated.

but he remained unwavering in his insistence that the invasion of iraq, which began in march 2003, had made the world better and the united states safer.. "five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it," he said.

Forscher

By the way,

Malloy hasn't got a clue. His million Iraqi civilian death figure is based on a study in the Lancet which was financed by Soros and used extremely flawed research methodology to arrive at a pre-determined result.

Forscher

39

Pathological President defends Iraq War

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

bush defends iraq war in speech by steven lee myerspublished: march 20, 2008washington president bush used the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in iraq on wednesday to make the case for persevering in a conflict that could have many more anniversaries.

democrats accused him of lacking a strategy to win and withdraw.. mr. bush, speaking before members of the armed forces and defense officials at the pentagon, said in his frankest acknowledgment yet that the costs of the war, in lives and money, had been higher and longer lasting than he had anticipated.

but he remained unwavering in his insistence that the invasion of iraq, which began in march 2003, had made the world better and the united states safer.. "five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it," he said.

Forscher

So far I haven't seen a valid case made for Bush being "pathological."

I've expressed my position on the war before. The strategy was sound. The execution was not. Before labeling Bush a liar, please recall that Bill Clinton stated the same beliefs while still in office. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many other distinguished Democrats also stated the same things Bush did. That is, until Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Even then they didn't question the intelligence he relied on, care to call Hillary, Kerry and many other distinguished Democrats "pathological" as well?

I've always maintained Bush was set up and betrayed by Clinton loyalists in his administration who couldn't stand Bush's win in 2000. With the publication of several book recently, one by an intelligence insider, I think I can safely say my theory is on solid ground.

Forscher

36

Did you help clean the Kingdom Hall, yard work, maintenance?

by Thechickennest in

at one hall i attended for serveral years had a lawn covering large man-made burms with trees and bushes.

it was a difficult yard to mow and maintain.

i have often wondered why we all pitched in and worked so hard for nothing.

Forscher

Yep, been there done that.

For a number of years in the late 1970s the lawn didn't get mowed unless I did it (exception, right before the CO's visit some brown-nosers looking for brownie points would show up and do it). I wore out several mowers on that lawn. Oh, the Hall had a mower, but I wasn't allowed the keys to the room it was kept in.

I did the quick-builds as well. Enjoyed the time spent on them.

Forscher